Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 23 January	25 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keeping based on the support for Pontificalibus' rationale. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aldgate bus station[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bus station. According to TfL, only five buses stop here. It just an area where buses terminate and there is nothing remarkable about this article to justify keeping it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First bus station in the City and busiest trolleybus terminal in London. I added some sources.----Pontificalibus 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: Only five buses stop at the bus station. It is barely a bus station if only five buses stop there. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, so the entire history of the bus station should be considered, not just what it's like now. ----Pontificalibus 09:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pontificalibus. Bookscale (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Pontificalibus here. Notability is not temporary. While some of the sources...leave something to be desired...there's enough here for a simple bus stop with some interesting and notable history. Waggie (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per SNOW. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Grethen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion as been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion as been notified to WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've done some Google searching myself and haven't found anything but places to buy his music. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I also suspect this fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:BIO. Waggie (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have done a thorough search and turned up nothing that remotely suggests that the subject passes the criteria either at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Sum total:

1. Concert announcement by the non-notable Ettelbruck (pop. 9000) city orchestra. The concert played compositions by Grethen and 4 other composers. Contains 3-sentence potted bio.

2. 2018 Concert season announcement for the Solistes européens Luxembourg with Grethen's name listed as one of the composers whose work they will play, but nothing else about him or his work.

3. Report of a concert given by the Holzbläserquartett in a church in Erbendorf (pop. 5000) with his name listed amongst the composers played but nothing else about him or his work.

4. Announcement from the European Union of Music Competitions for Youth about the results of a competition for young musicians in Luxembourg. It states that Grethen was one of 2 composers commissioned to write a piece for the competitors to play, but nothing else about him or his work.

5. Name listed as one of several younger Luxembourg composers in Histoire contemporaine du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Vol. 13. 1994, but nothing else about him or his work.

6. 2005 Annual Report from the Luxembourg Society for Contemporary Music mentioning a compilation CD which they released and listing the names of the 10 composers whose works appear on it, but nothing else about him or his work.

In short, no significant coverage of either him or his works, no major awards, no recordings on notable labels, no evidence of works played by notable soloists or ensembles in notable venues (let alone reviews). Background note: From the creator's user name, this was pretty clearly an autobiography [1]. This user also created it on the German [2] and French WPs around the same time. The French version was deleted shortly thereafter per this AfD in which the creator used two socks in an attempt to swing the vote to "keep". Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on Voceditenore's due diligence. Missvain (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In addition to the thin sources found by Voceditenore, I can add only a notice on the "World Premieres" page of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 177 no. 4 (2016): 79, of the 19 September 2016 premiere of Upswing in the Luxembourg Philharmonie (performers not named). As with those other listings, there is nothing further about the composer, and all that is said about the composition is that it is a commission by the Ministry of Culture.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome, I think the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik notice is referring to this 2016 concert given by the Solistes européens Luxembourg (mentioned above re their 2018 season announcement). The remainder of the programme for the 2016 concert was Shostakovich's Symphony N° 9 and Sibelius's Symphony N° 5 but as in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, there is nothing in it about Grethen or the piece they premiered, apart from the fact that it had been commissioned by the Ministry of Culture. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So, nothing new there, then.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually Jerome, your 2016 premiere is new. The first Solistes européens Luxembourg link was to their 2018 concert season announcement. The new one I added merely confirms who performed the premiere in 2016. The venue, Luxembourg Philharmonie, is reasonably notable (at least in Luxembourg), but I fear this is hardly enough to demonstrate notability of the composer. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with statements above. Only found three extremely brief mentions in routine coverage. Fails GNG and (as far as I can tell) WP:MUSIC. PK650 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:SALT - everybody knows in 2020 that we are not a resume service. This is a particularly run of the mill composer. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ivie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG.~~ Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article as nominated didn't include a case for notability and could have been an A7 speedy deletion, but now I have added four published books so it looks like there probably is a case to be made. I don't have time to search for reviews right now but I strongly suspect he passes WP:AUTHOR for his multiple books on political dissent and political rhetoric, which look to be from reputable presses and likely have multiple published reviews. I will formulate an actual opinion once I have time to do a proper search for those reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just added 20 reliably published and in-depth reviews of five books to the article. That's easily enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per David Eppstein's excellent work. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Austin Research Laboratory[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with "No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term." Prod was declined, an anon redirected it later, that was reverted. Time for an AfD discussion. What makes this research institute separately notable from its parent company (IBM Research)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little independent coverage, could just be included on parent company's page. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 12:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. But we need to see a serious merge proposal and discussion first. The previous so-called merge that I reverted was just a delete, with the merge target article getting smaller when 6 other articles were deleted. This was just wrong. If we don't have a sensible merge plan for the more minor sites, keep them. For the major sites like Almaden and Zurich, just keep. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only needs glancing mention at IBM Research if at all. 45.19.55.132 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to be independently notable. the suggestion of redirect and perhaps a merge based on secondary sourcing (which appears to be lacking in the current article) is reasonable, however. Waggie (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in reliable sources to suggest that this particular location/unit has any standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Its clearly not notable on its own. I'd go with merge, but there hardly seems to be enough even for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riders Tour[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Cannot any proof of its existence, now or in the past. Since 2006, the only global tour is the Global Champions Tour. Cannot find an evidence that Riders Tour was a predecessor to this one. Rogermx (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom. Can't find any proof of existence, though I could certainly be missing something. Waggie (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krister Axel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNG fail. All the sources and inline links seem to lead to the subject. I found nothing independent in a search. The awards are all web-based awards that allow you to enter after paying a fee. Appears to be solely a promotional use of Wikipedia. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Awards are insignificant but are made to sound important for WP:PROMO purposes. Heck they even say how to promote oneself, (In a state the obvious way). Mattg82 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, promotion is the name of the game here. I found this article as I was checking to see if any articles used CHILLFILTR.com, the article subject's creation, as a source. Chillfiltr.com allows you to submit news items for promotion, for a fee. It's all part of a strategy to create a tissue-paper thin veneer of notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I love the pretentiousness for all songs listed on the home page. Mattg82 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks to the folks above for finding that all the awards are bogus. All coverage to be found on this musician are bogus news articles on those bogus awards, and various other self-created mythology like his fancy but thin "reviews" blog. The gentleman has little going for him except self-promotion at this point. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's some evidence of playing around the country. If a tour could be verified, then he'd pass MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AfD is not for clean-up. Tone 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the United States government[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a very poor quality and is full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations as well as some WP:WEASEL violations. The article reads like an essay. Proposing deletion per WP:TNT. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-referenced (50) and clearly meets the general notability guideline. None of the given reasons (poor quality, original research, synthesis, weasel words etc) are valid for deletion; rather, they suggest that the article be improved. It gets good readership averaging 92 pageviews per day. Keep it; fix it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's full of cites and not exactly short. XeroxKleenex (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While this article really could use a lot of help, and I completely understand why the nom is citing WP:TNT as rationale for deletion, I don't think it's a lost cause and there is useful information here for the "average reader". Hopefully someone will spend some time to clean this up a bit. Waggie (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the others. That being said, the article definitely needs to be improved. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for clean-up. There's plenty of good cites in the article. See WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay not an article. It is infinitely expandable as a topic because there is no meaningful scope to it. There could be legitimate articles exploring criticisms of America’s form of government and on US government policies on specific issues, but wrapping everything up into a general catch-all makes no more sense than an article on ‘criticism of pop stars’ or ‘criticism of ship captains.’

I agree the article's scope is blurry; you've clarified the article's essential problem. If kept, a new title could refine the scope, such as 'Structural criticism of the United States government'. Much of the current article is about this already. But the 'infinitely expandable' reason could be applied to anything; isn't the subject of 'Cats' infinitely expandable? What's more important is whether the topic worthy of expansion. My sense is that it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832. Tone 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bishop (priest)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG or the achievements to meet WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless more in-depth sources turn up. We barely have enough here to distinguish this specific Rev. Henry Bishop from other people also named Rev. Henry Bishop active at the same time; it's not enough for an actual article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 per discussion below. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - There is a Henry Bishop of that time in Boase but it is not this Henry Bishop. This Henry Bishop is less remarkable, and seems to be known only for being a member of the Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws, and that as a member of the clergy from Oriel college. He does not meet WP:GNG for biographies. He could get a mention in the page on the poor laws - and indeed he does. He is not notable enough for a biography of his own, however, and this was recognised by the second editor to edit this page in 2009. In the last 11 years, no one has found any reason why he should be considered notable. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 per discussion below. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge briefly~~ to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832, where there is a list of members (including him): brief biographical details can be appended to the appearance of his name there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I very much respect your input into deletion discussions, and usually end up agreeing with you because of your better research. But on this one I am going to ask whether you would think again. Merge is not deletion, and if there is a consensus for merge, we have to start again with a merge proposal. That would be the right thing to do if there was a lot of information to be merged, because the Wikipedia license and copyright law require us to keep page history of the merged content when undertaking a merge. In this case, however, any information to merge is minimal, and consists of a tiny bit of biographical detail lifted from a source. That is neither creative nor original, so can be copied in right now without any copyright implications. It would be better to agree deletion of the page and just add some detail to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 before the deletion is complete. If you agree, I will make an edit to preserve the biographical information. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I would be ok with adding his dates and that he was a Fellow of Oriel to the commission article, now, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, and then redirecting this article to the commission article in place of or as well as my delete recommendation above. We don't need to include the other genealogical information. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832. I have added very brief details to the list of commission members, so that I now consider there is nothing to merge. As a fellow of Oriel Coll., Oxford, he was probably in effect a lecturer - a NN academic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I've been on the fence about this one and I think that is a good compromise. I think it's possible more sources may emerge in time, but they don't seem to be available now.Jahaza (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep, but please perform a cleanup now that you have identified a bunch of sources. Tone 20:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Bloom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, unreferenced, and non-notable. Does not pass WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG, from what I can tell. The few references that I could find (1, 2) don't seem to qualify as significant coverage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being unreferenced and promotional, created by a (mostly) SPA editor 8 years ago. The subject's website has a press kit page that sources perhaps 20 examples of coverage in sources of varying quality. I haven't taken the time to make a detailed assessment of each, but at a glance they seem to cull material from her own provided content. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the nom, I've only found the two sources they link to. One is apparently a press release, and the second is an interview (both primary sources). This is leads me to also believe that it fails notability guidelines. Waggie (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:

"Bloom wants her act to speak for itself" from the Spokesman-Review
"Camille Bloom may be the next great Seattle singer-songwriter" from The Seattle Times
"Indie Autumn" from The Independent-Record
"Life on the Edge" from The Independent-Record
"Music review: Camille Bloom puts pieces into package" from the Knox News
"Camille Bloom" from The Missoulian
"Enjoy a bouquet with Bloom" from the Albuquerque Journal
"Songwriter's career starting to bloom" from the Albuquerque Journal
"Bloom in ugly shirts" from The Spokesman-Review
"Home studio provides space to bloom" from The Spokesman-Review
"A life in pieces" from No Depression
"ALBUM REVIEW: Camille Bloom “Pieces of Me”" from Audio Femme
"Camille Bloom Is Ready to School You" from The Advocate
"Get A Piece Of Camille Bloom" from Curve
"Camille Bloom & The Recovery" from M Music & Musicians
"Teacher-turned-singer Camille Bloom will play Ventura Oct. 3" from Ventura County Star
"Camille Bloom brings her 'feisty' to Prescott" from The Daily Courier
"CAMILLE BLOOM WANTS TO GET INTIMATE WITH YOU (BUT NOT AT A WOMEN'S FESTIVAL)" from OC Weekly
"Stuff From the Shelf: ‘Never Out of Time’ by Camille Bloom and the Recovery" from the Daily Bruin
"Camille Bloom" from Paste

And the following sources help establish WP:BASIC:

"Bloom brings bite" from the Fort Collins Coloradoan
"Album Review: Camille Bloom, “Pieces of Me”" from Pop Dose
"Camille Bloom and the Recovery: Never Out of Time (self-released)" from Spike Magazine
"Full rock experience" from The Spokesman-Review
"Camille Bloom: Pieces of Me" from OutSmart
"Growing Songs" from the Albuquerque Journal
Camille Bloom from The Independent-Record
Camile Bloom concert from The Independent-Record
"Camille Bloom and The Recovery" from the Missoula Independent

And there are many more. I will drop these on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the many reliable sources identified above that shows a pass of WP:Basic and WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 (only one criteria needed). With this many sources it shouldn't be too hard to replace any promotional content with neutral prose, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG. AfD is not for clean-up issues. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has many sources, but the article needs to be edited to include these additional references. Countrychick56 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC as per a review of the sources provided by Missvain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Edge (album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnotable album. No sources found for it. Bluedude588 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. An album for Discogs only. Mattg82 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never seen this at AllMusic before: https://www.allmusic.com/album/cutting-edge-mw0001060161 it's an entry but doesn't have any info about the work. I also found https://www.punknews.org/review/6089/franky-lee-cutting-edge http://www.contactmusic.com/music/frankyleex22x01x07 but the do not appear to be reliable sources (at least the second is not) so does not meet GNG or NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It seems that the band article existed only because of this album. If this is deleted, we should PROD the band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Beyond the empty AllMusic entry that merely confirms the album's existence, all that can be found are standard retail/streaming entries for the album and even those are few in number. I also agree that the band has notability issues of its own, but that is a different process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. While I would normally propose a redirect to the artist's main article (in this case Franky Lee), the notability tag makes me think it is best to delete this since the band has notability issues of its own separate from this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Wheeler[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. All the coverage that I see of her is routine news or incidental mention Rogermx (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm still looking and haven't made up my mind yet, but there's at least one source that provides more than routine coverage. This [3] from the NYPost discusses her retirement from the Texas Pacific Group as the head of retail investments for the company. Clovermoss (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the New York Post article that Clovermoss mentions, I was unable to find anything that covered her significantly enough to qualify for GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Missvain: I also found this [4] from The New York Times, there appears to be at least a few paragraphs about her. There's this [5] article from Yahoo Finance. I'm still looking for more possible sources, but do these seem significant enough for notability? Clovermoss (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Clarification: I just realized the second article is a press release and thus not revelant. Clovermoss (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article (here it is archived) doesn't provide significant coverage, but, if we were able to find a few more citations like that - we could establish using WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: Well, there's also this [6] from Buyout Insider, which references the NYPost article. There's one sentence about her in this article in the Wall Street Journal [7], and a sentence in The Gazette [8]. With the two more detailed sources and two other ones be enough combined to meet WP:BASIC? Clovermoss (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence isn't really enough for me. That's just a passing mention. I think there needs to be more significant mentions - paragraphs, etc, like the NYT article. Feel free to make your case if you feel otherwise, but, I'm not seeing enough to change my opinion. I also saw a number of those passing mentions and didn't even consider including them in my comment. Missvain (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: I can accept that,and I'm inclined to !vote delete myself. Apart from the Buyout Insider coverage, I haven't been able to find anything more significant than that, and I've spent a lot of time looking (and you've looked as well). I like to be as thorough as I can before voting delete, and I appreciate your advice on what I was able to find. Clovermoss (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there currently isn't enough in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. Clovermoss (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clovermoss and Missvain's findings. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any suitable sources to salvage this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than working, it's unclear what she's done that's notable. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Becker (politician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Razer(talk) 19:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggestion that Mr. Becker fails the notability test. He has been interviewed or cited in numerous local and statewide news sources, with occasional coverage in national papers. Information about him appears on a variety of websites of organizations he's associated with. He's been a notable citizen in the Bay Area for well over a decade, as an associate of Gavin Newsom during his mayorship, an investor/advisor for firms such as OPower (which was eventually purchased by Oracle) and Lex Machina, and as a member of various appointed boards.

I'm fine, though, with pulling the article off the main site until the draft can be improved -- I wasn't aware of the "draft space" being a thing until today. I attempted to just wipe the article in favor of a link directing anyone else that might want to edit it to the draft, but @Praxidicae: reverted that edit. Auros (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as electoral candidates, as the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but candidates also do not automatically get a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL just because a few hits of local campaign coverage exist, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a few hits of local campaign coverage. So to deem a candidate notable on GNG grounds regardless of not passing NPOL yet, it's not enough to just show a smattering of local campaign coverage: we would require evidence of nationalized coverage, demonstrating a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered much more special than everybody else's candidacies. And the concept of preexisting notability for other things that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy is also not being fulfilled here, either — people are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they have "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations, but still have to show reliable source media coverage about that prior work before they can claim to be notable for it. And neither is the notability test, for either politicians or founders of organizations, passed by being "interviewed" or "cited" — it's passed by being the subject of coverage, not just by having one's name mentioned in coverage of other things. If he wins the state senate seat in November, then he'll obviously get an article at that time, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "NPOL-passing officeholder" — but notability is judged by what's already true about the subject today, not by predicting what might become true six months or a year from now, and nothing that's already true about him today clears our notability standards yet. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this seems fair enough. Having been around in Bay Area politics and tech for twenty years, I would say if you asked virtually anyone who's held local offices here who he was, they'd know, even though he hasn't held office himself, and he's also widely known and respected among folks involved in the Sand Hill VC industry, particularly the subset that cares about politics. But if that's not how we're defining notability, OK... (And yes, I know "no original research", but that's why I found links to a bunch of local articles.) Is there any reason not to revert the Draft version of the article to accumulate content there, that could be submitted as an AfC depending on the election outcome?

Delete - People do not get articles for only being candidates. This article about Becker reads like a campaign brochure. Also, his article has been created and edited by someone involved with his 2020 campaign, to quote Auros's (the article's creator) user page: "volunteered with Jerry McNerney's first successful campaign for the House, and with the 2010 and 2020 campaigns of Josh Becker." If Becker wins in November 2020, then he is eligible for a Wikipedia article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 14:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for state legislative office do not meet WP:NPOL for being a candidate. As Bearcat says our community expects "evidence of nationalized (And I would add "or international") coverage, demonstrating a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered much more special than everybody else's candidacies." --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Waggie (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local coverage of a candidate does not add up to passing GNG, otherwise we might as well rule all candidates for public office notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Being a former political aide who runs for office is very common and neither guarantees an WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely nothing more than run of the mill. He seems to be very progressive and has done worthy and respectible work, but so have millions of activists - that's not notable. FWIW, I am a former Democratic committee person ad candidate. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uruzmag Ikoyev[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about footballer who made a single 93rd-minute substitute's appearance in a Russian Football National League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [9]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - handful of minutes in a pro league, meaning he scrapes by on NFOOTBALL, is not sufficient with such comprehensive GNG failure. Giant Snowman 13:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we rewrote football notability to a cut off above playing in one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep/withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mattg82 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Rushin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run-of-the-mill person whose only claim to fame is that he won a competition to design a coin. Mattg82 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ARTIST with two museum collections (added sources). It will always be a very short stub, but who knows, maybe he will do something else notable?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. He has designed two coins, both by open competitions that he won. One was in 2007, the other in 2012. The article version that was nominated had the sources mixed together. Meets GNG also by sustained coverage over time. More sources added.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm in support of keeping this, specifically under WP:ARTIST. Designing as coin that are in circulation is no small feat. He's designed multiple coins. He could also pass WP:BASIC. Sources include:

"Mint's 2 sweetie coins market in good taste" from The Guardian
"Pounding the Pavement" from the Associated Press was featured in newspapers across the United States
"Happy birthday, £2 coin" from Moneywise (and that is his coin design in the photo)
London 2012 Olympic coins from The Telegraph
"London 2012 Olympic 50p coin designed by Norfolk man" from the BBC
"Britannia to return to circulating British coinage in 2015" from CoinWorld
"eBay: 'Rare' £2 coin with this minting error selling for £4,000 - do YOUR coins have it?" from Daily Express
"Royal Mint UK Releases Fifth Portrait First Edition and ‘First and Last’ Edition Coin Sets" from CoinWeek
"Two-tone pounds 2 coin arrives" from The Independent
"Classics of everyday design No 7" from The Guardian
"Horstead artist designs new 50p coin" from Norwich Evening News
[https://coinsweekly.com/britannia-is-back/ "Britannia is back." from Coins Weekly
"Guess how long Britain's £2 coin has been around" from Examiner Live
"As the Royal Mint celebrates fifty years in Wales, we reveal 50 facts you didn't know about how coins are made" from This is Money
"20 years ago: £2 coin launched and a litre of petrol cost just 66p" from Your Money

His work is also held in the following collections:

"Sailing 50p Coin Design" - Royal Mint Museum
Proof two pounds - Royal Collection Trust
"Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" - Science Museum Group
"Coin - 2 Pounds, Elizabeth II, Great Britain, 1998" from Museums Victoria

Missvain (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability criteria as per collections and press coverage. Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE. Afd is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks I'll close/withdraw this, he has achieved sustained coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctioners[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An obscure indie comic, and its corresponding character list. It was kept in an AFD 13 years ago, but the arguments used there were ones that would not really be valid anymore (mostly consisting of "its probably notable" and "we can find sources later" votes). The main article is using only primary sources, and the character list is only using a long-defunct geocities page. I tried searching for any additional sources, but was unable to find a single thing in any reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Mike Curtis (writer) due to "Shanda Fantasy Arts" redirecting to his article as the only real link to anything else about this. The topic definitely doesn't have the notability to stand on its own. TTN (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fagelia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only Wikispecies information. Too short. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being too short is not a reason for deletion. I have added a reference to the article which shows the genus exists. It may be endemic to Madagascar as I found these two other sources which are both related to Madagascar [10] and [11]. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if someone puts the sources into the stub. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Osoriinae. Being too short is absolutely a reason to merge though. Mere existence of a species or genus does not mean we need an article, this is exactly what Wikipecies is for: https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fagelia Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. User:Bearcat has found enough sources that it's pointless to have this up for deletion anymore. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucigenia (album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album. The only definitely reliable source I can find for this album is the AllMusic entry. This verifies the existence of the article, and contains a review, but we need more than just that one source. Sources like Discogs, Spotify, and Napster are not reliable, and that's about all I can find outside of the AllMusic entry. WP:NALBUM suggest a merge to the band's page, but I personally feel like a redirect would be the better result here. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It charted in Canada peaking at #37 but that is not an automatic right to inclusion per WP:NALBUMS, only suggests that it might be notable. I will wait to see if anyone can come up with reviews. Mattg82 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The thing about albums that were released in the 1990s is that their sourcing won't necessarily Google well, because that was an era when media coverage was not routinely published to the web — so for a topic that's that old, Google is not the whole story or even most of it, but rather you need to search news archiving databases to determine whether the topic had sufficient media coverage in its own time. In just five minutes on ProQuest, I've already been able to considerably beef up the sourcing, so there's a much clearer case for keeping it now. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dipterygium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only Wikispecies information. Too short. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this is a valid taxon. It seems like no attempt was made to find sources. This case would have been better served by a {{Unreferenced}} tag than an AfD. --Nessie (📥) 13:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Genera are considered notable and this is a valid taxon, as shown by its inclusion in GRIN. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - two clicks on Google scholar and books reveals lots of sources. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx (programming language)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dead language that was never really alive. No good refs. —Wasell^(T) 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable for an article on its own. It gets a mention on List of programming languages which will become a red link on deletion, but not a reason to retain it. I have added it to List of programming languages by type#Stack-based_languages with a reference. That is sufficient information for readers to locate the historical information should they be so interested, and to ensure deletion here does not consign it to total oblivion. There is really not much more that can go on this Wikipedia page (except for the interesting aside that the stack could grow from both ends). I searched for WP:RS but could find nothing. I thought I had found an article in the Linux Journal but that turns out to be for a completely different Onyx.[12]. Onyx code is still available - it is Open Source - but there seems to be almost no visibility for the language beyond a burst of hype in 2004. Thus deletion of its own page is correct. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am closing this early per the rationale we used behind Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Cornwall. I'm also going to take the liberty of dealing with List of cider producers in Dorset, List of cider producers in Hampshire and List of cider producers in Devon. Missvain (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cider producers in Devon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:YELLOWPAGES, WP:LINKFARM and quite badly sourced, the very few notable entries are already included in List of cider and perry producers in the United Kingdom. Follows on from earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Cornwall Ajf773 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a WP:DIRECTORY of the names and websites of a particular class of non-notable local businesses. Reywas92^Talk 18:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom and Reywas92. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goopy Geer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cartoon character. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Keep. It's a part of animation history.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (the first of the Wikipedia:Five pillars) says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. Wikipedia is freely available, and incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (Emphasis added.) Don Markstein's Toonopedia is a specialized encyclopedia. It's important enough to have its own template for citing. The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons is also specialized encyclopedia.

Like it or not, animated cartoons are part of human culture now. They just are. This entity is part of the seminal early days of this new medium. Not an important part, but a part, a part significant enough ("the first Merrie Melodies star") to be of interest to a small but non-zero number of people researching the topic.

And there's plenty to say about the entity. It's not a stub. It's several paragraphs long. There's plenty of useful information about the entity. That's because the entity probably meets the WP:GNG, with a long entry in Toonpedia (considered reliable), a couple sentences in The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons (reliable I assume) and a couple paragraphs in Toonzone (don't know if that's reliable). There may be other sources out there too. It's at least on the bubble for GNG, and over the line in my view.

But even if it's not -- this article averages 19 views a day. 7,000 people a year. Explain to me how deleting this article will enhance the experience of those 7,000 people who are looking for information on this entity. It's really a simple question. No I don't want to hear about this pettifogging rule or that pettifogging rule. WP:IAR. "Deleting this article will enhance the experience of people searching on this term because ________". What goes in the blank? Fill in something compelling and I'll switch my vote. Can you? Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well supported by reliable sources currently in the article, per WP:NEXIST: The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons, Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation, Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide to the Warner Bros. Cartoons, Don Markstein's Toonopedia and That's All, Folks: The Art of Warner Bros. Animation. These independent secondary sources give background real-world information and commentary. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus and Toughpigs comments above. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is informative, well-sourced, and of interest. Meets WP:GNG DiamondRemley39 (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced and clearly passes notability standards as far as I can tell. — Hunter Kahn 15:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't know if I would characterize the article as "well-sourced", but there are a few halfway decent sources (and a few bad ones), and the topic does appear to be notable (if barely) as a sourced piece of animation history. Waggie (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "the first Merrie Melodies star" is a notable achievement. Any history about animation mentions this character. Dream Focus 04:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical objects in Dark Sun[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fictional minutia, fails WP:LISTN. TTN (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely in-universe descriptions of non-notable fictional items, that are only referenced to a handful of primary sources. None of the objects described pass the WP:GNG individually, and I am finding nothing that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:GAMEGUIDE should also apply here, but for some strange reason, it's restricted to video games. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a game guide and not an article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. An article might be created on the genera topic, but this isn't it. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Marigold Bowl and Arcade[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A former bowling alley that, while certainly commendable, does not appear to have garnered anything but local notability. The article is currently unsourced, and searching for sources only turns up one result in what might be considered a reliable source, found here. And even then, it is only mentioned in a footnote for the article, and not covered in the article itself. It appears to fail the WP:GNG, as well as WP:NBUSINESS Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I found a couple additional sources by removing the " and Arcade" portion of the business' name, here and here, but in both cases, the coverage is nothing more than a one-sentence mention. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a reference for the final claim in the text. However in doing so, I see that the article text and that reference (marked All rights reserved) duplicate one another, indicating a possible WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required by the GNG and being inducted into the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame doesn't meet any notability standard I know.Sandals1 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killed Me (Ironik song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. iTunes is only source, didn't chart, and has nothing notable about it. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart so doesn't pass music notability guideline. Mattg82 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think songs that don't chart can still qualify as "notable" under certain conditions, but this is definitely not one of them. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A song does not have to chart to be notable. In fact, the WP:NMUSIC policy states that it may be a sign of notability, but it is not an absolute. Whether or not something has received a significant amount of coverage in third-party, reliable sources is a better gauge of notability. However, I agree with Foxnpichu that this just does not have that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mexiton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the speedy because the topic was not obviously made up. However, Google searches on this topic reveal nothing relevant, which, combined with a complete lack of any sources, make me think that this article may be a hoax. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not sure if this is a hoax, or simply a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM trying to be promoted by the individuals who coined it. But, either way, the utter lack of sources on the topic would imply that it shouldn't be here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and neither Billboard nor Rolling Stones Latin sections makes any mentions of "Mexiton". Erick (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decline the speedy because I did manage to find a few releases under mexiton on streaming services. I think the latin culture isn't understood as much as it could be therefore, Mexiton is just as important a topic as Cubaton or Reggeaton music. We should continue to build this page. I have looked into the latin community and reviewed artists like "El lobito" or "BXBBYSWXRLD" who published works under Mexiton. Currently looking for supporting articles. I vote to keep this page up and help people understand what mexiton actually represents. After all, this is an encyclopedia. 12:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditor0624 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Agesa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a fully-professional league? PK650 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Heussenstamm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing that this individual is notable. In the article, the first two references are Amazon ads for books she wrote, the third is dead, the domain having been registered to the article's subject. The fourth is a shared obituary page. Number 4 is about an experiment she carried out in 1969 and the 5th is an article that only mentions her, with an incorrect date. There doesn't seem to be any enduring notability about this experiment. Other than these, I haven't been able to find anything about the article's subject in reliable sources. The page creator has created pages about other members of the family and these don't seem to lend to notability either. AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST. No sign of notability. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here because she is in the artist deletion sort. She fails there, but passes WP:PROF, I believe, because she was the "author of highly cited academic work", namely Bumper Stickers and the Cops, that showed police were more likely to issue citations if they did not like the bumper sticker of the people they had pulled over. It is mentioned a lot in Google books, e.g.:

Discourse Comprehension: Essays in Honor of Walter Kintsch by Charles A. Weaver, III, ‎Suzanne Mannes, ‎C. Randy Fletcher - 2012
Social psychology and the study of deviant behavior, by Andrew John Pavlos, University Press of America, 1979
Blacks and Bureaucracy: Readings in the Problems and Politics of Change, by Virginia B. Ermer, John Hadley Strange

Crowell, Jan 1, 1972

Politics and the legal process, by James Eisenstein Harper & Row Limited, 1973
The enemy in the streets: police malpractice in America, by Ed Cray - 1972
The basic processes of criminal justice by James Leray LeGrande - 1973
Contemporary social psychology: representative readings by Thomas Blass - 1976
The evaluation enterprise by William R. Meyers - 1981

From what I could tell form Google books, the above are in-depth mentions. There are many other mentions as citations.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reviewers: Please take a look at the new information presented by

ThatMontrealIP. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the evidence that ThatMontrealIP discovered. The subject of this article does not fit into neat disciplinary, artistic nor academic categories, but the sum of her work in all of those areas establishes that she has attained notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThatMontrealIP's research. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Bumper Stickers article has about 70 citations on Google Scholar. Calling that "widely referenced" is a bit of an exaggeration. Her citation record and academic record otherwise looks to be a long way from meeting WP:NPROF. WP:NAUTHOR is possible, but looks to be unlikely. I found one review in a RS for the 1993 book, now added to the article. (It looks like there's another review of the same book by H Gorchos, but I couldn't find publication info for it.) But the other two books are self-published, and I didn't find reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her widely cited bumper sticker campaign, and her WP:PROF status. Additionally ThatMontrealIP has dug a bit deeper- bravo. Wm335td (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep based on the evidences of ThatMontrealIP. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmartDec Scanner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only references cited in the article are entries in three indiscriminate lists. I've searched for additional cites and haven't found anything usable. Google turns up some social media activity and a lot of crypto news sites - SmartDec has a 'blockchain edition' and is a member of the 'Blockchain Association', so please keep WP:GS/Crypto in mind and remember that crypto news sites are generally not reliable sources. Google scholar turns up a few hits for a program called 'Smart Dec.' That is a C++ decompiler, not a static analyzer, and is a separate project by separate people. I believe this article doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by employee of developer so WP:SELFPROMO. Mattg82 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promo, insufficient external coverage to meet notability requirements per nom. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article creator's comment below: I'm well aware of OWASP and NIST, but neither of those lists confers any more notability than "someone put it on a list." Per the OWASP page: OWASP does not endorse any of the vendors or tools by listing them in the table below.. Per the NIST page: In no case does [a trade name being identified on the list] imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), nor does it imply that the products are necessarily the best available for the purpose. If those lists were of products recommended by OWASP or NIST, then that would be a different story, but these are just lists of tools for people to look at, and it looks like you can just submit a pull request/email (respectively) to get your product added (as long as it meets the minimum definition of a security analysis tool). That means that the lists are not sufficient to confer notability. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from page creator (reformatted by creffpublic)
The only references cited in the article are entries in three indiscriminate lists. ;Delete self-promo, insufficient external coverage to meet notability requirements per nom
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Source_Code_Analysis_Tools - OWASP is a very trusted source in the community of application security testing as well as https://samate.nist.gov/index.php/Source_Code_Security_Analyzers.html.

OWASP is not affiliated with any technology development company, but it supports the competent use of security technologies. We are going to add some new references from users and companies as soon as possible.

I've searched for additional cites and haven't found anything usable. Google turns up some social media activity and a lot of crypto news sites - SmartDec has a 'blockchain edition' and is a member of the 'Blockchain Association', so please keep WP:GS/Crypto in mind and remember that crypto news sites are generally not reliable sources.
Yes, SmartDec company works with Blockchain projects, but company's main product is SmartDec Scanner, and the dedicated team works on SmartDec Scanner. SmartDec Scanner is not focused on blockchain, it can scan mobile, web and business applications. Also it can scan Solidity and Vyper source code for blockchain projects.

Google scholar turns up a few hits for a program called 'Smart Dec.' That is a C++ decompiler, not a static analyzer, and is a separate project by separate people. I believe this article doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted.
SmartDec decompiler was developed by SmartDec company. The founders of the project work with SmartDec Scanner now. SmartDec Scanner is a SAST tool, which includes decompilation phase, because it can scan binary code. You can find the sources of SmartDec decompiler on SmartDec’s github: https://github.com/smartdec/smartdec. Also you can find the authors of SmartDec articles (like https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6079860, Katerina Troshina and Alexander Chernov) on smartdec.com page. I think that SmartDec Scanner should not be deleted from the Wikipedia that users should get all brief information about all possible tools that can help in security question.

Delete Article created by employee of developer so WP:SELFPROMO
It's not a promo, just a brief information without any promotion

A.prokofiev (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC) A.Prokofiev[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mobile web. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Internet growth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've never proposed an article for deletion before, so apologies if I don't have the process quite right here - but Mobile Internet growth is simply one of the most bizarre and extraneous Wikipedia articles I've ever come across.

1. I don't believe most people would consider "mobile internet growth" to be a discrete subject requiring its own article (as opposed the article on, say, the mobile web)

2. The contents of the article appear to be entirely focused on statistical figures from circa 2009 (note that even the "predicted growth" section merely offers forecasts for the years... 2012 and 2015). Yes this could be updated, but frankly, I don't see much reason for this requiring a standalone article. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thins discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. @OmgItsTheSmartGuy: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 15:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section in the mobile web article and redirect. Limited evidence of notability independent of the parent topic. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete or redirect? Please share your thoughts! Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll come back when I've perfected a joke involving the word derivative. —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Mobile web and make it redirect. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or, realistically, Redirect) to mobile web per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lhammas. Tone 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oromëan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a language from Tolkien that didn't even make it into the final draft. While the draft history of Tolkien's works is very interesting, and may even be documented enough for an article, we don't need to have article about all of the ideas he had in drafts and later dropped. Typing in the name of this language into Google Scholar with the diacritic on top brings up exactly two hits: a scholarship thesis and a master's thesis. Comprehensive GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien~~ Elvish languages (Middle-earth) where there is a mention of this but which could use a better historical treatment. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is only mentioned in the see also section. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien. Goustien (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but I think Elvish languages (Middle-earth) is a more suitably specific merge target. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and have changed my response accordingly. Mangoe (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing to merge, as this article contains no useful content. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, so merge is not appropriate. Could be redirected to Elvish languages (Middle-earth) if a sourced mention of this language is added, else delete. b uidhe 15:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete True, Tolkien was a philosopgist, and so he cared about things like language family, but we have no reason to keep an article on a fictional language family not mentioned in actual publiscation, and actually dropped before publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lhammas, which apparently is where Tolkien conceived the idea, which he later abandoned. Cf. Melkian. Goustien (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lhammas per Goustien. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that WP:SIGCOV is met, especially following Cunard's input. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disney family[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this on the basis of TNT because it needs to be blown up. It's all fan cruft/original research, as we know geni, ancestry etc...rely on user submissions and cannot be used to establish reliable fact. This has spun so far out of control that I can't see how it can possibly or reasonably be saved and there's no good history to revert to because the several thousand edits have been inundated by socks. It is so far beyond anything we could consider encyclopedic and is just a giant pile of WP:NOR. Praxidicae (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag anything needing sourcing. Eventually it will be reduced to what can be reliably sourced. BD2412 T 23:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the ten years it's existed no one has bothered to add actual reliable sources, it's all synthesis and unsourced cruft and afaict, there's no sources talking about the lineage as we display it in this article. And here is what it would look like if I removed the unsourced or improperly sourced cruft. It becomes a list of people with the name Disney. Praxidicae (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this just needs to be scrapped. No sign that this unit is really notable. Wikipedia is not a place for posting geneological tables.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- If we were dealing with something similar as a category at CFD, I would say that we have enough connected people with articles to allow retention. I do not see how a list article differs from that. There may well be a case for pruning it of NN content, but how the various Disneys were related is surely worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 21:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this one to see what others have to say. Is this not appropriate for Wikipedia? Is there room for a cohesive article about the "Disney family" as a whole with breakouts to their appropriate notable family members? Think Medici family.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Disney_family#Family_tree There are nine blue links. Seems like a valid list article to me. Category:Family trees shows there are just a massive number of articles like this. Sometimes articles have room to show the family tree information in them, and sometimes its split off into a spin off article. Are there any government websites that list information which can be used for a reference for everyone listed? Or does the Disney company have this listed anywhere? Dream Focus 16:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only people who appear to be notable are Walt and Roy Disney. Other blue links include their parents (notability is not inherited) and descendants who got jobs and foundation gigs because of nepotism. Not sure how I feel about the article's notability or whether it should be merged into something like the Walt Disney article.Sandals1 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own articles. Dream Focus 18:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. They don't get discussed much as a family, as it's really just the one generation/two brothers that's really notable. They're not the Rothschilds or the Kennedys. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPThere is another film person of note (not yet added to the page, I think): Melissa Disney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.217.111.126 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Disney's article says "she has often claimed to be a distant relative of American film producer and businessman Walt Disney". That doesn't sound like there's a reliable source to back that up, except for her own word. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a genealogy service; there is no evidence all the relatives or even the siblings are notable or that the extended family is a whole is notable, even if more verifiably sourced. Should be easy enough to discuss the relationship among the few notable members elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 00:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject (even has its own book by the looks of things). Given current members of the Disney family are still worthy of their own blue links, this should remain. It needs work, certainly, and additional referencing, but that's not a reason to delete. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm that's apparently a self-published book and certainly does not contribute to notability. If you want to TNT the page and write an actual article with prose, that may be fine, but this is not a reason to keep a mere family tree of mostly non-notable people. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. The vast majority of these people just are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that WP is WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. There already are articles on the notable people from this family. WP is not a repository of geneological research - there are many resources on the net that can be used for that. Netherzone (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Krasniewicz, Louise (2010). Walt Disney: A Biography. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-35830-2. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
Mosley, Leonard (1990) [1985]. Disney's World. Lanham, Maryland: Stein and Day. ISBN 978-0-8128-8514-9. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
Gabler, Neal (2006). Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-75747-4. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
Robb, Brian J. (2014). A Brief History of Walt Disney. London: Constable & Robinson. ISBN 978-0-7624-5475-4. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
Prescott, Viviann Permelia (1993). Prescott: A History of the McCaffree & Prescott Family, in Three Parts. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Peter E. Randall Publisher. p. 359. ISBN 9789993289685. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
Cole, Michael D. (1996). Walt Disney: Creator of Mickey Mouse. Springfield, New Jersey: Enslow Publishing. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0-89490-694-1. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
Barrier, Michael (2007). The Animated Man. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 12–13. ISBN 978-0-520-24117-6. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
Clark, James C. (2000). 200 Quick Looks at Florida History. Sarasota, Florida: Pineapple Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-56164-200-7. Retrieved 2020-01-29.

Sources with quotes

Krasniewicz, Louise (2010). Walt Disney: A Biography. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-35830-2. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book notes on page xxv:
Timeline: Events in the Life of Walt Disney

1801: Arundel Elias Disney
1834: Kepple Disney, Walt's grandfather, is born.
1836: Arundel Disney and family emigrate to New York.
1858: Kepple Disney marries Mary Richardson.
1859: Kepple and Mary have a son, Elias, Walt's father.
1888: Elias marries Flora Call and they settle in central Florida. Son Herbert is born.
1890: Elias moves his family to Chiago, works as a carpenter at the World's Fair. Son Raymond is born.
1893: Son Roy O. Disney is born.
December 5, 1901: Walter Elias Disney born.
1903: Daughter Ruth is born.
The rest of the book discusses Walt Disney's family in detail.
Mosley, Leonard (1990) [1985]. Disney's World. Lanham, Maryland: Stein and Day. ISBN 978-0-8128-8514-9. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book discusses the origins of the Disney family:
On the other hand, like many Englishmen who boast that their ancestors "came over with William the Conqueror," Walt Disney could legitimately claim he had Norman forebears, too. Generations ago, his ancestors were French peasants who originally came from the Norman cheese-making town of Isigny, through whose winding streets GIs of the U.S. Army fought during World War II. His family was named after their place of residence.
In 1066, a date known to every English schoolboy as the year his country was conquered by the French, several members of the d'Isigny family swarmed across the English Channel as part of the invading army of William of Normandy. When William ascended the English throne, his mercenaries, including Jean-Christophe d'Isigny and several others of the same clan, were encouraged to settle in the conquered territories, and they were given title to the English lands and properties. They married English women, and, anglicizing their name from d'Isigny to Disney, they became rich and prosperous English gentry, although one of them ended up as a disreputable, corrupt, and womanizing lord high sheriff of London. In the seventeenth century, the family made the mistake of supporting the Duke of Monmouth's rebellion against King James II. The heads of the family were ordered arrested and incarcerated in the Tower of London, and their lands were confiscated by the crown.
The book notes on page 24:
The early records of the Disney family confirm that they were, on the whole, an amoral and easygoing lot, much given to dancing, drinking, and periodical hell-raising.
The chapter then continues to discuss the Disney family.
Gabler, Neal (2006). Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-75747-4. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book notes:
... The Disneys claimed to trace their lineage to the d'Isignys of Normandy, who had arrived in England with William the Conqueror and fought at the Battle of Hastings. During the English Restoration in the late seventeenth century, a branch of the family, Protestants, moved to Ireland, settling in County Kilkenny, where Elias Disney would later boast, a Disney was "classed among the intellectual and well-to-do of his time and age." But the Disneys were also ambitious and opportunistic, always searching for a better life. In July 1834, a full decade before the potato famine that would trigger mass migrations, Arundel Elias Disney, Elias Disney's grandfather, sold his holdings, took his wife and two young children to Liverpool, and set out for American aboard the New Jersey with his older brother Robert and Robert's wife and their two children.
They had intended to settle in America, but Arundel Elias did not stay there long. The next year he moved to the township of Goderich in the wilderness of southwestern Ontario, Canada, just off Lake Huron, and bought 149 acres along the Maitland River. In time Arundel Elias built the area's first grist mill and a sawmill, farmed his land, and fathered sixteen children—eight boys and eight girls. In 1858 the eldest of them, twenty-five-year-old Kepple, who had come on the boat with his parents, married another Irish immigrant named Mary Richardson and moved just north of Goderich to Bluevale in Morris Township, where he bought 100 acres of land and built a small pine cabin. There his first son, Elias, was born on February 6, 1859.
Though he cleared the stony land and planted orchards, Kepple Disney was a Disney, with airs and dreams, and not the kind of man inclined to stay on a farm forever. ...
Robb, Brian J. (2014). A Brief History of Walt Disney. London: Constable & Robinson. ISBN 978-0-7624-5475-4. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book notes:
Disney's great-grandfather, Arundel Elias Disney, had been born in Gowran, County Kilkenny, Ireland, a full century earlier in 1801. He claimed ancestry back to Frenchman Robert D'Isigny of D'Isigny-sur-Mer on the coast of Normandy in 1066, although later researchers could find no definite family connections going back that far. The D'Isigny family name was soon anglicized to 'Disney', and became the name of their village of Norton Disney, south of the City of Lincoln. The family branched out to Ireland and then, with the emigration of Arundel and his brother Robert and their families, to the United States. They arrived in New York on 3 October 1834 and went their separate ways, with Robert heading to the Midwest to take up farming and Arundel heading north to the Goderich township in Ontario, Canada.
The North American gold rush of the late 1800s brought Arundel's son Kepple Disney and his grandson Elias Disney (the oldest of Kepple's eleven children) back to the United States, heading for the California gold fields. En route, convinced that land was perhaps a more sounds investment than panning for gold, Kepple bought 200 acres of Union Pacific Railroad land near Ellis, Kansas, and established a farm. Farm life didn't suit young Elias and he spent some time working on the railroad, before returning to the Kansas family farm thanks to the attractive charms of their near neighbour, Flora Call.
Flora's family, of Scottish and English descent, had also pursued the riches promised by the gold rush, only – like the Disneys – to end up as Kansas farmers and landowners, a much more reliable lifestyle. Neither family liked the Kansas weather, however, so the Disney and the Call families moved together to Florida in 1884, where Elias bought a forty-acre farm and Flora became a schoolteacher. The pair finally married on New Year's Day in 1888 at Flora's parents' home in Acron, Florida (just forty miles from the eventual site of the Walt Disney World Resort). Elias Disney was twenty-eight and Flora Call was just nineteen.
Prescott, Viviann Permelia (1993). Prescott: A History of the McCaffree & Prescott Family, in Three Parts. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Peter E. Randall Publisher. p. 359. ISBN 9789993289685. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book notes:
In 1801 Arundel Elias Disney went from Normandy, France to Canada. His son was Kepple Disney who married Mary Richardson born in Ireland. They had eleven children, one son being Elias Disney born in Canada. In 1888 Elias Disney married a Scottish lass named Flora Call AKA McCall or McCally who was born in Ohio. Her father, Charles Call, son of Eber Call, moved to Kansas in 1879 then he moved to Florida in 1884. It was in Florida that Elias and Flora met and they were married in Akron, Florida on January 1, 1888. Elias was associated with the Congressional Church and the Florida Militia. During his life he resided in Kansas, Florida, Illinois, and Missouri.
Elias Disney was a building contractor, and it is said that he built his family's first home. Flora became a school teacher in their little town. Their four sons and one daughter were:
1. Herbert Disney born December 8, 1888. He ran away from home as a youth.
2. Raymond Arnold Disney born December 30, 1890. He also ran away from home early, perhaps with his brother Herbert.
3. Roy Oliver Disney born June 24, 1893 married Edna — and they had a son, Roy Edward Disney. He served in the Navy during World War I.
4. Walter “Walt” Disney born May 12, 1901, married Lillian —, and they had two daughters, Sharon and Diane.
5. Ruth Disney born 1903.
Cole, Michael D. (1996). Walt Disney: Creator of Mickey Mouse. Springfield, New Jersey: Enslow Publishing. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0-89490-694-1. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book notes:
"Pa always had ants in his pants," said Walt Disney's brother Roy about their father Elias Disney. "He could never stay in one place long enough to warm a seat."
Elias Disney had already lived in Kansas, Colorado, and Missouri before any of his children were born. He had worked as a carpenter on the railroad line and as a mail carrier. He had bought and sold an orange grove in Florida, and had even panned—unsuccessfully—for gold in California.
While in Florida, Elias married a young woman named Flora Call on New Year's Day, 1888. Later the couple had their first son, Herbert. After selling the orange grove, Elias moved the family to Chicago, Illinois. There, he went into business as a carpenter and home builder in the expanding midwestern city. With a steady income, Elias had little trouble supporting a growing family, which soon included sons Raymond and Roy.
Barrier, Michael (2007). The Animated Man. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 12–13. ISBN 978-0-520-24117-6. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book notes:
Elias was a Canadian, born in rural Ontario in 1859. He was the eldest of the eleven children of Kepple Disney and his wife, Mary Richardson, both of whom had immigrated to Canada from Ireland as children, with their parents. Kepple and Mary lived after their marriage on a farm about a mile from the village of Bluevale. Official Disney biographies suggest that the Disney name is a corruption of a French original, and that the first Disneys came to England in the eleventh century with the Norman invaders, but, as traced through census records, the family tree's roots dwindle to invisibility in eighteenth-century Ireland.
Kepple Disney and his family moved to a farm at Ellis, Kansas, in 1878, and it was from there that Elias moved to Florida and undertook his failed venture as an orange grower. In Florida on January 1, 1888, he married Flora Call, sixth of eight daughters (there were two sons) in a family he had known in Kansas. Flora, born in 1868, was nine years Elias's junior.
Clark, James C. (2000). 200 Quick Looks at Florida History. Sarasota, Florida: Pineapple Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-56164-200-7. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
The book notes:
But while central Florida more than fulfilled Walt Disney's dream, it was a nightmare for his father and grandfather. Kepple Disney and his son Elias were Canadians who immigrated to the United States. They wanted to go to California but ended up in Kansas. Elias Disney was disappointed, but it was in Kansas that he met the Call family. Flora Call was about Elias's age and he fell in love. When the Call family announced that they were moving to Florida in 1884, Elias and Elias's father decided to go along. The rest of the Disney family soon followed.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Disney family to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Disney family has been covered in detail in multiple books. The Wikipedia article can be significantly improved to address the WP:NOTGENEALOGY and Wikipedia:No original research concerns. I support retention because I find there to be sufficient reliably sourced material already in the article (including citations from two Los Angeles Times articles and one from a The New York Times article) to make it worth keeping.
Cunard (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's research. That info is mostly about the family in the context of Walt's biography, and without him this subject wouldn't be notable, but this could be treated as a spinoff article. It can be improved rather than deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's research. Additionally this is information that can aid in further research. We should always think of our readers. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wow, at first glance I thought that might just be a refbomb, but opening the collapse box provides some very articulate explaining of the material in the sources. Thank you, Cunard for going that extra mile and putting together such a coherent, well-explained argument! I wasn't going to participate in this at first, but that argument definitely swings me to say that this should stay. I don't oppose the TNT and have no objections whatsoever to a complete overhaul, but AfD consensus isn't needed for that. Someone's initiative is. This article isn't so bad that outright deletion is needed before being restored like some others out there. -2pou (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Candyman (1992 film). The problem with the later "keep" votes is that they only have a bare assertion of notability. A redirect sounds like a suitable compromise, and can always be reversed and expanded into a full article at a later date. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lyle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannon see why this character is notable; only question for me is which is the proper redirect target, the story or the film. The article is almost all plot summary; the other content is trivial and belongs in the article on the film. TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just giving a page a single look and deciding that you don't think it's notable is not a good way for Wikipedia to operate. Its getting rather tiresome for this to be the norm on AFD on fictional characters it seems. This character has been the subject of analysis in several literary works such as Apocalyptic Dread: American Film at the Turn of the Millennium, Horror Films of the 1990s, Shocking Cinema of the Seventies, Clive Barker: The Dark Fantastic, Tactics of Hope: The Public Turn in English Composition, Masters of Evil: A Viewer's Guide to Cinematic Archvillains, Monstrous Adaptations: Generic and Thematic Mutations in Horror Film, Architecture + Film II, Imagining the modern city, etc.★Trekker (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge into Candyman (1992 film). The real question is, does she transcend the works she appeared in? I'll count the film and the short story as one combined work (the film was based on a short story), which would make her a one-off character, who can be fully discussed in Candyman (1992 film) until that hits size limits to allow for WP:SPINOUTs. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I slightly changed my !vote: I see this article just got started, so I also see WP:DRAFTIFY as an alternative, allowing User:*Treker to demonstrate that it would pass as a SPINOUT, if properly developed. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just want to point out here that I am not the actual creator of the article, I simply made the redirect that was turned into the current article by another editor. I feel like the actual creator should be notified as well.★Trekker (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article on work they appear in. Not indepdently notable and work is not so heavily covered that a content fork is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current reception section does not suggest the analysis, if any, has been in-depth. I could change my vote if Trekker provides more information on the sources he mentions (such as how in-depth is the analysis - sentence, five, paragraph, chapter, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Basing your deletion vote on how an article currently looks as opossed to the sources you can look trought is not how it should be done.★Trekker (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article should be improved, the character is notable, but the current state of the article doesn't reflect that. It simply just needs some modification to be able to stay on the site. Treker found some more sources, those should be implemented ASAP. SeanTheYeti452

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the page on the movie Candyman (1992 film). PenulisHantu (talk)
Redirect - The current page is too trivial. The main article should reach such a state where information on the character is given too much weight and needs to be split out. Otherwise, this is just an unnecessary duplication of information. TTN (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage one more round of participation by the community. Seems people have thoughts all over the board - what about you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly notable character. The article could be expanded. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Notable. Bobherry Talk Edits 04:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Projection Booth. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike White (writer; filmmaker)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. White is also not notable for his interation with Quentin Tarantino per WP:BLP1E. KidAd (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Welcoming more input from the community. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect His podcast seems notable. Redirect to The Projection Booth. -Jordgette [talk] 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ely[edit]

Notoriety can be found in inventing technology and founding a company, publishing thought leadership in articles and books which shaped an industry, and giving back to the community through creating a non-profit and serving on boards of a national university. Tomajriley (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. While the article cites a number of sources, none are particularly in-depth (consisting of one-word or one-sentence mentions, for example), are WP:PRIMARY, or are primarily concerned with more notable topics - a WP:NOTINHERITED issue. None of the awards the subject has been awarded meet Wikipedia's criteria for notable awards, and new sources that could potentially be added to the article are of a similarly low quality as those already present. Furthermore, no sources cited indicate how the subject has a claim to encyclopedic notability; indeed, they seem to be a run-of-the-mill businessperson. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete For all the reasons stated above plus some serious gaming of the system to get this article into the mainspace to begin with. There are also some serious WP:COI issues with this article as well given that Tomajriley twice submitted a draft of this article, both of which were reject. Then (miraculously) a random IP created a new draft of this article, which Tomajriley personally reviewed and accepted. Strangely enough, both the account and the IPs have only ever made edits about Ely or his company. Again I recommend a speedy under G11 as this is clearly an attempt to put a promotional article on Wikipedia. GPL93 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:TNT. I would have excused posting a resume on a charity's web site 13 years ago, but not now; everybody knows in 2020 that this is wrong. Even if his family were famous - which we have specifically decided in the past is not - he doesn't get a free pass because of his relationships. His accomplishments are of the middle management sort. Nothing in the article shows any significant, independent coverage. I'd work on it, but I have been very badly burned in the past by such nonsense at AfD. It's not my job anymore to fix your problems. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bain Turo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any real notabilty, too soon vet much applies. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one single mentioned, nothing much on Google with no hits on Google news, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elyse Smith[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable TV weather forecaster without coverage at a level suggesting notability. The single source cited is a local news blurb mentioning her as a new person at a local TV station, and giving no information about her beyond mundane data like place of birth, where she went to college, where her last job was, and why she left. Largoplazo (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few meteorologists are notable, and we can not show such with 1 passing article more about staffing changes than the staff being changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One routine staff announcement does not meet the GNG and nothing shows there's anything notable about this meteorologist.Sandals1 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded it for the same reasons. A good faith google search came up empty. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Davis (businessman)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think the subject passes WP:N. Sources cite him a bit, and there are a handful of personal bio's on websites, but there's not really any significant coverage about the subject in reliable secondary sources. There are sources that talk about Tungsten Branding, but that's not the subject of this WP:BLP. Comatmebro (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of a notable branding company. Enough primary sources to meet WP:NBIO KittyKatey (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KittyKatey (talk) is the creator of the article in question.

WP:PRIMARY sources are not intellectually independent from the subject, and are the exact opposite of what we are looking for to establish notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Davis technically meets WP:GNG guidelines based on sources provided. Reliable and independent citations are available. Lightningbumbum (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightningbumbum: If better quality sources exist, they should be added to the article or shared here. However, primary sources should be avoided; for example, the source you added was written by the subject (a WP:PRIMARY issue) and is part of a paid program. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Yet to demonstrate significant impact to business world or industry. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - he does branding for other companies. How is that notable, unless he wins a Clio or its equivalent? Bearian (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a WP:NBIO failure. While the article cites sources, too many are centered around WP:PRIMARY information or lack the depth of coverage needed to establish the subject's notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though some citations are relying on WP:PRIMARY sources, there are enough sources that meet WP:N and show that Davis is notable in the branding space.73.212.1.155 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

73.212.1.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Missing persistent, significant and in-depth coverage. Notabililty not established. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. For so few participants, this was a complex call. There were, by handcount and including the nom, three !votes for delete and two !votes for keep which would normally be No Consensus. However, one keep !vote was barely more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE and the second keep subsequently said the article should be renamed Noble Foods and become an article about the parent company instead. Since that editor's !vote, a second editor has in fact created a standalone Noble Foods article. The closer, therefore, has to follow the logic of the first editor's argument to determine what to do in such a circumstance which — by my read — would indicate that they would have wanted to see the article deleted if a Noble Foods article existed at the time of their original !vote. And, since that situation has now come to pass, it appears there is a consensus for delete. Chetsford (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Egg Company[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wiki-Ad for an egg company has been peppered with non-RS to create the appearance of adequate referencing. A detailed analysis, however, shows it's sourced entirely to trade journals and passing mentions on the websites of industry associations. Three RS (the Wall Street Journal, HuffPo, and Guardian) contain mentions of the most incidental variety. The only substantial coverage is from the Daily Mail which is consensus non-RS. A thorough BEFORE search finds just more of the same (though frustrated slightly by the fact there appears to be an identically named, but different, company). Wolfson5 (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Quite a well known company, I think the sources add up to a weak keep, the article is a little advert'ish, but I feel this is fine on wikipedia, I see no reason to delete this. Govvy (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may or may not be a well known company, however, NCORP establishes specific guidelines for notability which includes a level of referencing that this article doesn't have, nor seems to be available to it. Our personal awareness of the company is not sufficient for notability (otherwise I'd make an article for Couesnon tubas). BIG BURLEY 23:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Burley22: I think you need to be more specific on what is failing WP:NCORP, because when I did WP:BEFORE I saw articles on google from, The Times, The Independent, Guardian, Farmers magazines, in fact there are rather a lot of articles regarding a number of different issues that haven't even been mentioned on the article. I am pretty sure this should be a keep article. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw articles on google from - I can't speak for what Burley22 did or did not find, however, WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally not a valid argument in an AfD. In my WP:BEFORE I saw these and, as I said in the nomination, wasn't convinced they amounted to WP:SIGCOV. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Wolfson5: I have been wondering if this article should be renamed to Noble Foods, at the moment, it's just about it's subsidiary. There are a number of articles like the Sunay Times, The Independent, which are involved with this company I think the article needs a rebuild. Govvy (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. I'm not sure I'd agree with it as the coverage of Noble Foods seems limited to either trade publications, which usually don't contribute to notability, or incidental mentions in larger reliable sources. These are essentially the same problems that plague the subsidiary. The articles you cite about Noble, for instance, basically consist of company spokespeople being quoted and - beyond that - the articles cover different companies entirely. But it's probably on the edge. In any case, could you thread your comments instead of starting a new thread each time you reply? You can find out more about threading comments here: WP:THREAD. Starting a new thread is a courtesy to other editors that keeps the conversation readable and is fairly easy to do with the use of a colon symbol at the start of each comment. Thanks. Wolfson5 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Foods was formed in 2006 when Deans Foods and Stonegate merged; Stonegate was sold in 2008; Although Noble isn't a well known name, at least two of its brands are (The Happy Egg Company, and Gü which was bought by Noble in 2010).[13][14][15] Peter James (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. With those references I took the liberty of creating Noble Foods. I'm still unconvinced this article merits retention, though, as I'm still only seeing purely passing mentions of it. Wolfson5 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Splinemath (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The test is not merely for "independent sources" or whether the references are published in "respectable" publications. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of references meet the criteria, most rely extensively on information attributable to company sources and others are mentions in passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maqbool Ahmed[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. There is just one source in the article and there are not many good sources which go beyond a passing mention. The subject is a 27 years old domestic Pakistani cricketer and has no chance at this point to make it to international stage and he is already close to his retiring age. There are hundreds of domestic cricketers in Pakistan. If we started creating articles for all those then Wikipedia will just be a mess. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He sails through WP:NCRIC with a total of 64 top-level appearances. Spike 'em (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if he fits the bill for "having played at highest domestic level" and whether the sources present can qualify as "substantial sources". These are vague terms in the policy and can be interpreted in many different ways. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what higher level is there in Pakistan that the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy, which is where all his first-class appearances took place? Spike 'em (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:CRIN. Seems to be another nomination from someone who doesn't understand cricket. If in doubt ask. StickyWicket (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know cricket, alright. I just did not know that Wikipedia is exorbitantly lissome when It comes to notability of cricket players! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 64 top-level appearances is hardly 'lissome'. StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks substantial, reliable 3rd party secondary sourcing needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CRIC. Cricinfo is a reliable source when it comes to cricket. Hitro talk 16:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isi & Ossi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

needs to be cited properly, as the articles is not cited as per wp:gng and wp:rs Shubhi89 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references, and a cast and production section added. - Thornstrom (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Its claim to notability is that it's among the the first thre Netflix Original Films from Germany, and it's covered by some German news outlets, the best I could find was from Stuttgarter Nachrichten.[16] However, I don't know if this would fall under "local news" and is too much in the "press release" territory, therefore my "weak" !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. I was able to dig up [17] [18] [19] [20]. Notable film. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Based on the discussion this appears to be considered a marginal case in terms of notability, but the fact that more editors are finding the sources presented here inadequate swings this towards deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Polya[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article cites no sources, references consist entirely of subject's own works. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article was written almost entirely by User:Philipivanov. This is the only article this user has contributed to. userdude 02:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As best I can find, he retired as an associate professor in 2003. He doesn't appear to have been granted emeritus status per [21]. Citation record is marginal. In short, the case for WP:NPROF looks weak at best. Not sure about WP:NAUTHOR. The material about his left-wing opinion pieces looks WP:UNDUE. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure the article is poorly written from more than one aspect, but this is not about CLEANUP. From what I can tell there is quite sufficient to support WP:NEXIST for WP:GNG even if the subject does not meet a specific NSUBJECT. The subject seems to be quoted across many genres and in many languages. Just a very very small sample of what can be very easily found are:

The above are highly reliable and respected sites. An article written by a single purpose account does not by itself mean that a subject matter is not notable. Aoziwe (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe works by Polya can be used to establish notability (per WP:GNG). Although multiple sources quote or cite Polya, I could not find any reliable sources about him beyond one or two sentences acknowledging that he is a former associate professor of biochemistry. userdude 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is sufficient to write more than a basic stub, and a balanced article. The person is a polarising subject and there are sources which "love" him and sources which "hate" him and some objectively critique his veiws. For example:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/an-academics-view/news-story/bf048b518486426d3797e662ca615022
https://newmatilda.com/2019/11/01/we-need-climate-warriors-like-gideon-polya/
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/bengali-famine/

and some others with bio details, for example:

http://latrobe.academia.edu/GideonPolya
https://www.asbmb.org.au/membership/50-years-of-membership/
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1007790/Biochemistry-at-LTU.pdf

And the quoting and referring to the subject is broad and sustained, and across multiple langauges. Aoziwe (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some of the sources you listed are invalid for consideration for WP:GNG:

[22] This is a blog post and essentially says no more than 'Polya is far-left'.
[23] This is the only source I believe qualifies as "significant coverage"; however, I do not believe the source qualifies as a reliable source.
[24] This source only briefly mentions Polya to say Polya's claims about Churchill are incorrect. I do not believe this qualifies as significant coverage.
[25] Biographies on Academia.edu are written by the user. This is not an independent source.
[26] This says nothing about Polya, just lists him as having been a member of ASBMB for 50 years. I do not believe this qualifies as significant coverage.
[1] This is just a passing mention of Polya saying he was a La Trobe staff member, a plant biochemist interested in regulation of signal transduction pathways, and retired in 2003.

userdude 01:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying that any of the individual references are significant coverage, and I agree, each on their own is not. All I am saying is that there is sufficient WP:NEXIST to write more than a stub article for what is a likely (especially given the way the subject is referred to across the world it seems) search subject of encyclopedic interest to people. Which, is what Wikipedia is here for? Aoziwe (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fails WP:NPROF as I discussed above. His CRC book had a review, but his political books look to be self-published and unreviewed. I don't think that makes WP:NAUTHOR. The coverage found by Aoziwe is marginal at best, and most of it not in reliable sources. With marginal-at-best notability and moderately serious sourcing problems, WP:TNT looks like the best solution. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His academic publications are on the borderline for WP:PROF#C1 but if that were all we had to say about him then I think we wouldn't have material for an article. The rest is unsourced political detail and badly-sourced and somewhat inflammatory-sounding (from the titles) self-published political material. With little way to get a neutral mainstream-sourced judgement on its significance, I think we're better off without it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linguix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The software doesn't appear notable under WP:GNG. I believe at most two of the sources provided with the article might meet the needs, and Google yields no independent coverage other than blogs and user-generated content. Largoplazo (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what evidence? I've looked at number of your contributions to other deletion discussions, which lead me to think you ought to read WP:!VOTE. The outcomes of deletion discussions are based on points raised and arguments made, not a tally of Keeps versus Deletes, so, if your interest in influencing the outcome of these discussions is genuine, you ought to present the reasoning behind your opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability: The software considered as a top alternative to Grammarly according to Product Hunt; It have got two rewards: premium usability rewards and risign star; Softpedia labs has acknowledged that Linguix's Chrome and Firefox extensions are 100% clean from adware/spyware etc. They are not blogs, for example, this is an independent Spanish speaking online media outlets: https://wwwhatsnew.com/2019/03/11/esta-herramienta-nos-ayudara-a-escribir-mejor-en-ingles-gracias-a-su-inteligencia-artificial/ Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk)

That a software maker managed not to built adware and spyware into its product merits special attention? Is every farm found by inspectors not to be shipping lettuce contaminated with E. coli likewise worthy of encyclopedic attention? Largoplazo (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going through the sources, 11 are self published, primary, or simply statements of the existence of the product. The remaining 5 are questionable, and accordingly it isn't clear that they are all independent enough to get this over the GNG line. I'm also concerned about the influence of undisclosed paid editors on this process. - Bilby (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable web application with no third party sources. Fails WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 18:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources appear to be churnalism. Guy (help!) 19:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Fold (brand). After extended time for discussion, there is clear consensus that this article should not exist, but an absence of consensus on what to do next. Considering that there is some support for keeping the article, albeit insufficient to overcome this consensus, the solution is to merge the content into the proposed merge/redirect target. In practice, however, there is very little cited content to merge. BD2412 T 01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polly McMaster[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like her brand, there are a lot of passing mentions but no true meaningful coverage. There are also a lot of "what's hot!" lists but otherwise nothing of substance. Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Bio lifted from this site, seemingly copyvio. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to Redirect to The Fold after that deletion discussion resulted in keep and as the copyvio in the McMaster article has been dealt with. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of detailed coverage such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:
- "Entrepreneurs: Suits you, madam... how to bring stylish work outfits to the high-flyers of London" from the Evening Standard
- "Welcome to The Fold's first physical store" from Drapers
- "From fintech to skincare: Meet Britain's brightest female business leaders under 35" from The Telegraph
- "My lightbulb moment: Designer Polly McMaster reveals how working in finance made her realise there was a lack of smart clothing options for women" from the Daily Mail (Yes, I know we don't always use the Daily Mail but hey, at least she got good press...)
- ""Polly McMaster: The Complete Woman" from The Telegraph
- BBC Business News Live - The Inside Track with Polly McMaster, The Fold Founder from BBC Business Live
- "Work It Out: Polly McMaster" from Harper's Bazaar
I will also drop these on her talk page. Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss sources found by User:Missvain
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain how the sources I presented above do not show the subject qualifying for general notability guidelines? Thank you! Missvain (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: the Drapers source is about the brand and the interview portion with her is primary, the first Telegraph source is a trivial mention that shouldn't be used to support a claim of notability, the second one at fashion.telegraph is a puff piece about her fitness regime and product preferences, Daily Mail is deprecated and can't be used to support notability, interviews on news programs like BBC Business Live are rarely indications of notability because they are primary sources that don't involve fact-checking, and the Bazaar article is a puff interview in the vein of the second Telegraph piece. Long story short: you've got one workable source, and it's The Evening Standard. The rest of it is not GNG-worthy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my above comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that I've removed the copyvio mentioned in comment #2 and in the process the sole source, so someone should probably add new ones if the article is (to be) kept. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Missvain has proved that sources WP:NEXIST. Hopefully someone will put them in the article. Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wm335td, did you read any of the sources? Or my comment above which demonstrates that only one of the sources is suitable for supporting a claim of notability? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Fold (brand) perhaps under a new section. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zagnut[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, it exists. Yes, I've heard of it. However, I am unable to find any independent reliable sources that have enough to say about it to support a reasonably detailed article. SummerPhD^v2.0 14:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Redirect to List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company where it is already included and briefly described. There are plenty of results that come up with searching, but as mentioned by the nom, they are all pretty passing and mostly just describe what the bar is made out of. It seems to be a product that is mentioned a lot in sources, but without anything actually in-depth said about it that would allow for much of an article. About the only coverage I'm finding that really goes beyond mere mentions are a couple of articles reporting on an anecdote that John Smoltz recounted last year about his belief that Zagnut bars are unlucky. I'm fairly undecided about whether I think the article could be built up or not, but, as there is a good target for a Redirect if nothing else, deletion is not appropriate here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A brief online search turned up a large multitude of sources on this subject, and searches on Google Books and sources like Newsbank/Lexis indicate there are many offline sources about this topic as well. Since this type of candy bar predates the Internet but multiple decades, it makes some sense that there isn't a lot of new coverage easily Google-able sources, but that shouldn't be taken as an indication it hasn't received coverage in sources. The sources are out there for anyone inclined to do some digging, and while the article as it stands right now it needs work, that in itself doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted. — Hunter Kahn 14:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical candy bar. Mentioned in Sweet Tooth: The Bittersweet History of Candy, page 244 and passing mention as part of Hershey's brands in Candy Bites: The Science of Sweets, Page 13. Numerous mentions in gBooks, mostly in passing, but giving the historical context for the once more ubiquitous candy bar. Passes WP:GNG and note that notability is not temporary. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I love these things, but the argument based on lack of secondary RS is spot-on. I don't see a consensus for a merge, especially since the content is unsourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blink dog[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. The last AfD seems to be a dogpile of keeps based on literally nothing but the promise of sources, which wasn't delivered or even proven to exist. The "In popular culture" is full of trivial mentions. TTN (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't look like there are any independent sources to support this one. SportingFlyer T·C 12:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are independent sources, in the "In popular culture" section. I'm not sure if they are enough to establish notability, however. Not a very active user (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a forum, a web comic, and a television show. At best there's a book I can't access. None of the available sources come remotely close to WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as above. I just will never understand the bizarre desire of some editors to remove content rather than preserve it. Your mate down the pub? Your house? Your brother's band? Clearly not notable. A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the scope of fiction is nearly infinite, so there needs to be a cutoff point. Unless you're of the opinion that Wikipedia has a duty to list every single minor character, creature, monster, location, weapon, skill, upgrade, etc of every fantasy series, video game, novel, tabletop game, etc that establishes notability on this site, we need set points where we say "Unless there are reliable sources detailing this with real world information, we don't need to cover anything beyond this point." TTN (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed my comment about "well-established elements"! Many elements in fiction aren't worthy of recording. But elements that have been around since the beginning of a game created fifty years ago and still significant today are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's uselessly subjective. That's why we have a much less vague notion of notability as established by the guideline rather than notability established by personal definitions. TTN (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an opinion. As are most comments at AfD. Remember, we don't have rules on Wikipedia. Something that is too often forgotten by those whose primary purpose and source of enjoyment here is to delete others' work, I've found. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion backed by nothing with no consistent logic in how it would be applied beyond your particular sensibilities. You have your idea of what you find significant and important, but that's not going to be the same as anyone else. TTN (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not a game guide and this has no notability outside of the game. Fails WP:GNG. I don't think WP:PRESERVE nor WP:ATD apply as this cannot be improved. It already faithfully describes much of what the game guides tell us, but the problem is that this is not notable beyond that. There is no mythology of Blink dogs. There are no WP:RS that describe this information for taxonomies or cultural studies. There are no journal articles on the habits of a Blink Dog. The only relevance this has is to people playing a game. D&D players know all about Blink Dogs because it is in their monster manual, and nothing Wikipedia adds is going to help them at all. That is why this and all the rest of these need to go. They are out of scope for an encyclopaedia. They are in scope for a D&D wiki or the publisher of a D&D game guide. Wikipedia is not those things so can we just stop contesting these deletions and let them all go please? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional monster. The sources are either primary, trivial, or from non-reliable sources. The previous AFD from a decade ago resulted in a "Keep" based on the argument that reliable sources probably exist, which, as it turns out, is not the case. Fails the WP:GNG by a fair margin. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the few creatures invented by rather than adapted for Dungeons & Dragons. More importantly, use of the creature transferred into videogames and a television show, indicating a certain level of awareness of the concept.Guinness323 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any WP:RS to that effect please? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's important that this creature was created for D&D, I've never heard of them once. They also appear to fail WP:GNG. Ergo, should be deleted as gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient RS to establish how it passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus to get rid of the article. It's not so clear whether a merge or a deletion would be the best way to accomplish that - while WP:GNG is not a requirement for a merger, the lack of secondary sources and the questions about the reliability of the primary ones weigh heavily in favour of deletion as all content on Wikipedia is supposed to be reliably sources/verifiable. So on balance, this is a delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aasimar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG TTN (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as above. I just will never understand the bizarre desire of some editors to remove content rather than preserve it. Your mate down the pub? Your house? Your brother's band? Clearly not notable. A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor fictional race, no non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources, fails the WP:GNG, etc. WP:PRESERVE is not some sort of catch-all argument that means that content cannot be deleted. It describes steps to take to actually fix the issues that may result in an article or content being deleted. In cases like this, where the subject matter fails the WP:GNG and reliable, secondary sources are non-existent, those issues are not going to be fixed by merging the problematic content into another article, and so WP:PRESERVE is not a valid argument for doing so. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one actually sources more than the monster manual, but it sill fails WP:GNG as it is only game guides and related player material. No treatment in any WP:RS and Wikipedia is not a game guide. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Per Rorshacma, WP:PRESERVE does not apply. Improvement is impossible because this is just not notable. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Not notable enough to keep, but I feel like this would be better than just straight up deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameron46 (talk • contribs)
Delete We've previously established that Wizards of the Coast is not RS due to a tendency to fictionalize and exaggerate information about itself, even information of the most back variety. The entire article is pretty much sourced to Wizards of the Coast publications, ergo, we have no RS that prove that "aasimar are a fictional race of humanoid creatures." Therefore, due to a total absence of RS, delete is the only viable outcome. Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that this should be deleted, but the argument that WotC can't be relied upon to confirm fictional details of their own fictional properties seems to miss the point a bit. Whether or not to retain the content doesn't hinge on "proving" by secondary sources that aasimar are a fictional race of celestial humanoids in D&D. That's a simple statement of fact; it's no more in question than the fact that Ned Stark was the lord of Winterfell in the fictional world of Game of Thrones. The question of whether or not to keep hinges on the fact that no one cares enough about the aasimar in D&D to produce reliable, independent, secondary commentary about them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no reliably sourced content to be merged. Not a very active user (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article subject has no coverage in reliable secondary sources, and therefore fails GNG. There is no information worth merging, and if it is redirected it should be deleted first to prevent recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BattleBots (board game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing establishing notability could be found apart from the one review already in the article, from the "short and sweet" section of that magazine (with, as the name suggests, shorter reviews). Nothing else in the 28 Google hits[27], and no obvious redirect target since the company has no article. Fram (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The single short review in Dragon appears to be the only coverage this game received, which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. I'm a bit disappointed that this was not a board game adaptation of the TV show, honestly... Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Monmouth (game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One review (given in article), listed on one or two games databases, mentioned (without any further information) in one book[28], and that's all there is to be found in the 19 Google hits[29]. Not notable, and no article for the company means no good redirect target either (including it in the Battle of Monmouth article would be WP:UNDUE). Fram (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BGG is not a valid source for establishing notability, and the source found by the nom is nothing more than a listing of the game in a catalog. So, Dragons review appears to be the only coverage this game received, which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimіtry Dikman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"philanthropy expert",ifthere is such a thing. Apparent promotionalism for his consulting service DGG ( talk ) 10:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of the sources I can read, two do not mention him and one is a merely mentions his name in passing. The user who created this article did absolutely nothing else, and that raises alarm bells. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for WP:UPE. MER-C 20:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Delete rationales are primarily focused around the need to edit and fix the article, not about any policy based reason why it doesn't meet the Criteria for Inclusion. Thus based on policy arguments, there is a consensus to keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We've been trying to work out how to handle these fires on the Australian WikiProject for a while, but this is a bit of a mess: its main purpose is to list operational firefighting names for parts of the fires that largely aren't in common use (or are in limited use) and have tended to change as fire complexes merge together. There's no indication of when these fires actually occurred or their relationship to one another (or not) - it's just a meaningless list of complex names. This is just a mess of a way to handle an extremely notable topic and there's a reason, in all of the discussion about how to cover it, no one has suggested doing this.

The "impact to towns" and "impact to national parks" sections are wildly all over the place and conflate damage from different fires in different states in ways that's really confusing, mashing the main east coast blazes that've made international news together with wholly unrelated fires. The whole thing is basically just unhelpful and needs to be either deleted or redirected to the main fire season page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy draftify I definitely believe this should be removed from main space at this time. There is some possibly useful material here, but it is not ready for any contextualised use yet. I have gently raised its immaturity before - see Talk:List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season#New article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem like a happy middle ground of sorts until more content can be sorted if it was a choice between the two Nickw25 (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the topic would be notable as a list, maybe not the "impacts" but definitely the list - is there any way we could clean this up before deleting it? SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so because it's fundamentally a list of names used by firefighting services with limited common use. Some of these will be different names for the same fire, many wouldn't have enough sources to give more than a general idea of when they occurred, and it's information that's generally pretty meaningless to most people (many people would know that places like Cobargo or Mallacoota got smashed by fires, but couldn't tell you which complex hit them). There's a reason many of these fires are (quite literally) sourced to an New South Wales Rural Fire Service XML feed of incident reports. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. We should not be too quick to write off the relevance of the names of the fires. At least in the "local" areas, and by this I mean within a radius of ~200km, about ~120,000 km², everyone will have heard of the "fires near me". These names are used specifically and explicitly in all ABC emergency information radio broadcasts, which during the "bad" days are updated literally constantly all day and all night, by name, and specific locality, and on the not so bad days if a fire goes to emergency status they will break into whatever progamming is on and refer to the fire by name too, and locality. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have any real usage outside the actual emergency broadcasts though? I'm less than 200km from the fire zone and like many people I've been watching the fire coverage constantly and everything on this list apart from the massive Green Wattle Creek and Gospers Mountain blazes is completely meaningless (and I still couldn't tell you where those two were except in the state of NSW). I really don't think I'm alone in this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the naming of multiple fires that are really part of a single "complex", you will need to raise that with the NSW RFS to change their policies, but I doubt you would get far as large major fires are complex and this season has made it a bigger challenge. It has always been the case where a major fire moves into another NSW RFS district (which is done for operational reasons). But the person who has been impacted by a fire doesn't care of what the name or what fire it was part of. Bidgee (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree there are issues with the list at the moment, although, a good amount of the raised issues could be resolved by reorganising the table logic to be around a single table per state, perhaps organised around place rather than incident, with a column that details allows for notes on the impacts (deaths, national parks etc) and not referring to individual fires that don't have a commonly used name. NSW seems to have quite clear conventions around the naming of fires, assigns them unique identifiers and tracks the outcome with those names quite widely used to describe the incident including outside of the fire service. Victoria is more less clear in this respect which is where some of those more operational names come from. Individual event level information will probably become more readily available after the season is over in the various reviews that will likely happen, and indeed I'd suspect some of them might get wrapped up under a larger banner at that point, although it would still make for an extensive list I'm sure. Looking at other articles for wildfires on WP there are examples of tables primarily organised around particular fires with the statistics for that blaze ... perhaps we're just not used to having so many notable incidents we need to give them all names when documenting them, which seems a fairly routine practice in some other parts of the world? Nickw25 (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can provide some context to why this article has come into existence. I was contacted by a cultural organisation who had been approached by a firefighting organisation (I do know the names but I don't know if I have their permission to name them) to ask if a Wikipedia article could be created that summarised the localities and impacts as a permanent record of events. They were aware of 2019–20 Australian bushfire season but wanted something tabular. I quickly knocked up User:Kerry_Raymond/sandbox4 to confirm I understood what they were looking for. As I am rather busy with other projects, I took the project to Wikimedia Australia where it was discussed in a teleconf, where some people expressed interest in working on it. I also discussed it separately with other Wikipedians who expressed interest in working on it. While there is an element of WP:NOTNEWS involved (fires are still raging), equally there are fires which are now "old news". I was not aware the article had been started until the cultural organisation contacted me about what to do about this AfD. I don't think we have a question of notability, we appear to have willing volunteers to work on it, so I think we should let it contine. Also I don't like the thought of the media reaction if we delete it. No matter what the reality of the situation, it will be "spun" as "Wikipedia doesn't think the Australian bushfires matter"; lets not feed the trolls. We have plenty of list articles that provide an alternative viewpoint onto a situation; I see no reason not to have this one. Kerry (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a matter of notability exactly (no one is arguing that the fires aren't notable), just that this way of presenting it is a hot mess that's a largely meaningless way of presenting the information. I don't think there's a problem with a decent and properly-sorted summary of the affected localities and the impacts on them (as your sandbox example would have come closer to doing) as opposed to this mess of fire complex names but this article isn't it and nothing in it is actually helpful (even the impacts would need to be completely reorganised). I'm a bit dubious that the media would care about us deleting a crappy list - it's not like it's even a key part of our coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you about how the content is being presented. On the talk page of the article, I have proposed that the table of fires be merged into the table of towns/localities. I agree that the fire names are not terribly helpful to our readers. I have also added coords to the table of towns/localities (where there are articles on Wikipedia that I could quickly grab the coords from) and added a {{GeoGroup}} at the top of the article as a quick way to get a map of the affected areas. My point about the media is that the muckracking end of that industry wouldn't worry about the existence of the other article, but whether they could simply sensationalise the fact that "Wikipedia deleted an article about the bushfires". At work we used to call it the "Courier Mail test" (whether some perfectly legitimate action could be twisted into a shock-horror exposé in the CM). Kerry (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not concerned about anyone sensationalising the deletion as a reason for keeping or deleting. Part of the problem here is the scale: the smaller fires are notable because they're a part of the whole, and the article may ultimately be useful as a guide for people doing research in the future. The names of the fires though aren't in common use really - I can't tell you the name of the fire that impacted me the most, for instance, but I do know the media has called fires by specific names, and we should use those names here even if they're not obvious to the people affected. If there's anything we can do to clean this up properly I would prefer that to deletion, so any suggestions you might have are welcome. SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Kerry Raymond: it sounds like the best option would be for you to work with the WikiProject to find a way to incorporate this information on some other page on Wikipedia. The standalone article as it currently stands doesn't really work, but the information would be useful if it was set out better. Bookscale (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Articles about fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other such things are quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 18:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus:, please read the deletion rationale. No one is arguing that articles about these fires are not encyclopedic. We are arguing that this article is not encyclopedic, for specific reasons. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at the valid referenced material in the article. Don't try to delete it just because some places are empty. There should be a government website somewhere listing the damage done to these areas. Dream Focus 23:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one is trying to delete this article "because some places are empty", nor is anyone opposed to more content about the fires. Please actually read the deletion discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2019–20 Australian bushfire season which is the main page on the fires where substantial work has already been done, and where anything useful in this article should be placed. The article the subject of this AfD is not in an encyclopaedic format. It contains duplicate entries on the fires and would need constant updating to be accurate; the list of towns/places impacted is probably selective too. I have no issue with draftifying the article either. Bookscale (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this list is basically an OR fork of 2019–20 Australian bushfire season. I don't think a redirect for this search term would be useful. Levivich 01:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as a valid WP:LISTN. In regard to the list/article, WP:NOTCLEANUP. I also believe that merging with 2019–20 Australian bushfire season would make the target article too long and relevant information would be lost. Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lightburst: Why do you think a list of internal firefighting names for parts of bushfires is a valid list and should be "cleaned up" instead? The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually !vote to keep lists that are informational or aide in navigation. Wikipedia advises us to do so. There is WP:NORUSH - we can delete this in a few months if we are inclined. That is why I !voted Keep for now. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on behalf of Librarian001 as per Talk:List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season#Page Help Needed. Aoziwe (talk)
Delete or dratify – per nom, currently a largely unsourced mess. When this all dies down we should have some clarity and then rewrite. Cavalryman (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. The most important element is the locations/towns impacted, there is no way to add the all into the main article (2019–20 Australian bushfire season) due to the number of them impacted. The argument that the list is selective, the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season article is far more selective than this list but there are fires and locations/towns not added since a lot of the early fires pre November 2019 are buried under the newer news stories (one of the issues I had trying to correct some information in the other article). Bidgee (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Knoch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Standard promotional biography of a "real estate authority" and "coach", created by a WP:SPA, edited by an IP that geolocates to the subject's home town, and based entirely on primary, unreliable and press release sources. Google finds more of the same but nothing I would consider to be evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Guy (help!) 09:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. Buying properties is not a claim to notability and there's no supporting evidence. "Coach", "entreprenure", "authority" are all weasel words with no definite meaning and are used to hide the fact that there's no achievements that show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once you get past the WP:REFBOMBing it is clear that there isn't enough substantial independent sourcing to demonstrate WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anthony[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources here are not about the subject, they cover a couple of events (leaving company X) but don't constitute substantive coverage of him. The roles are not high profile and some of the content looks like it was written by his PR. Guy (help!) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete~~ There are certainly sources to document the subject's positions for about two decades, but then they appear to drop off the radar. I could find nothing which resembled any IRS bio material, and the position material did not really talk much about achievements, good or bad, apart from a lot relating to what is essentially a single event, ie AGL. There is sustained coverage over time but it is very light on and mostly just routine commercial reporting. If any one can find any reasonable depth bio material I might be convinced to change my !vote. Aoziwe (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. As per my comment below re "Doughty Hanson" I still have concerns, about the reliability of some of the reliable sources. Many of them seem to have regurgitated content treating "Doughty Hanson" comparably to other positions held by the subject, when if the "other" source is correct, this is clearly not the case. If the reliable soruces have regurgitated unreliable content, what else might be unreliable. I am now curious to see what else might be found out about the subject, in time, covering the periods before and after 2000–2007. Aoziwe (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. True, he has drop off the radar but notability is not temporary. In addition to the routine reporting there are also sources covering his activities in deep, eg. this. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying that notability is temporary. I was saying why has reporting stopped, and hence further coroboration of sources becomes difficult. Aoziwe (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also article is becoming outdated. Ref 3 is behind a paywall and 4,6 and 7 are all broken. Teraplane (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Teraplane:, the fact that the articles are becoming broken is not a reason for deletion. Notability is not temporary. Bookscale (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - @Bookscale:, fair enough, but then the references should be updated or replaced for adequate citation. They are breaking because they are so old the orignal content has been removed from news sites. Another indication of lack of notability. 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - @Teraplane: removal from news sites is also not an indicator of notability (or lack thereof). Please see the notability guideline more generally. Bookscale (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Broken references and being outdated are not valid reasons for deletion. However, the article has been expanded and references are fixed with a number of additional sources. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I do not see anything here that would make the subject notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There article has been updated and references establishing notability have been added since your comment. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beagel. Looking at the revised and much improved article there is now a much stronger case for keeping that there was, as I do think on the basis of what has been added makes a good case for the subject's general notability. So I am not now convinced that deletion is the way forward, and therefore would lean towards Keep, although it is a relatively close call. Dunarc (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has the problem that there isn't much online from that period when he was lots in the news, but I distinctly remember this episode and judge it to comfortably clear our notability threshold. I have found one item online that refers to that period. What happened was as follows: first, he negotiated a massive severance package (mentioned in the source I added). Then, when Contact Energy was privatised, he stayed on and everybody was mightily surprised (that's also covered in that reference). But what happened next is what got him into the news big times: he had somehow negotiated an even higher severance package and got paid out NZ$6.5m, which at the time was unprecedented in New Zealand. I see that the National Library has nine newspaper items about this period (Dec 2000 and Jan 2001) in its collection. The sources exist, but just aren't online (any longer). Schwede 66 01:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the references (only two of them remain dead), found two new references that document his aggressive takeover tactics while at AGL Energy, and expanded the article. It looks more solid in the current state. Can I encourage you to have another look to see whether that changes your take on the matter? (JzG—Aoziwe—Johnpacklambert—Teraplane—Bookscale—Dunarc) Schwede 66 03:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better. It is no longer single event. I would be prepared to go to weak delete. Why can we only find mainly routine commercial material for seven years for someone who is 65 years old if they have a good case for notability. If we could find some level of bio study I would be prepared to go to at least a "weak keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talk • contribs) 09:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the end of his tenure at Contact is hardly "routine" - most of the article is about him. Don't forget that Schwede has also found newspaper sources that are no longer (or were never) available on the internet. Bookscale (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are two significant "events", ie "Contact Energy" and "AGL". I think the better search on NZ Nat Lib is probably this one, but no matter. You are probably correct, there is probably just enough to get over the GNG line. I think what is making me nervous is more about the accuracy and completeness of the article. While not about CLEANUP here, the integrity of the article worries me. I cannot find any sources at all for content before 2000 that would definitely not be regarded as churnalism. There is no secondary or primary material that I can find anywhere at all. It all seems to be regurgitated as fourth and fifth hand. Only minor, but it adds to my nervousness about the integrity of the article, is that some balance needs to be added re "Doughty Hanson" - see this for example. And then after 2007 the subject completely disappears off the radar - much less not online coverage excuses then - but possbily given then issues at AGL the subject did not get any more newsworthy positions. Aoziwe (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, Thanks for your work on this. See my comments above under my original.Dunarc (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I actually hadn't done anything except comment on this AfD until now and I was staying out of the discussion as I thought it probably just didn't scrape through and wanted to see some more discussion, but I can see now the sources Schwede has added (or found, where he can't add online sources) indicate that Anthony's tenure at Contact Energy was significant in New Zealand corporate history and there is notable at least on a national basis (which should be enough to keep the page) and there are RS to support that notability. Add the Australian AGL material to that and in my view it gets this one over the line. Thanks for your work Schwede for assisting other users in helping to consider this AfD. Bookscale (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are number of sources satisfying WP:GNG. Several sources are analyzing his activities as CEO of different companies, so its not just passing mentioning. These sources are from different countries, most importantly from Australia and New Zeland, but also from Denmark. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Quiroz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written in highly [tone] and the topic is lacking [media mentions in reliable source.]

Articles from Hindustan times & Deccan herald that are used in citation are clearly marked as PR. https://www.deccanherald.com/brandspot/pr-spot/from-selling-shirts-to-owning-tuned-in-tokyo-frankie-quiroz-throws-light-on-his-entrepreneurial-journey-790995.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/frankie-quiroz-s-inspiring-journey-fuels-tuned-in-tokyo/story-wqmouTL2z0B3bioOELpWBI.html

5th citation is leading to 404 error https://www.news9.com/story/41069134/tuned-in-tokyo-llc-shares-inspiring-story-of-mr-frankie-quiroz

Other source of media mentions are not reliable. The topic is not notable enough and lacking significant media mention in reliable source.

"Frankie Quiroz is a serial entrepreneur and brand creator who has successfully built 8-Figure brands" The article is written in highly promotion tone and not suitable for the encyclopedia Britishtea567 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)— Britishtea567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. No significant coverage in any reliable sources that I can find. I did find an archived copy of the reference giving the 404 error and it is just another press release. I'm seeing nothing but self-published sources and marketing "interviews" in my searches. CThomas³ (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close The nominator has less than ten edits to their name and is not even confirmed yet. This is a most curious seventh edit. ——SN 54129 16:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Madhaberisl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 17:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per their explanation, condemnation of Bbb23 is withdrawn, with acknowledgements ——SN 54129 14:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on G5 eligibility The article was created by a sock—User:Wesleyner7—so should be eligible to be deleted under G5. Unless, of course it has substantial edits by others. User:Bbb23 argues that it is not eligible for such deletion, presumably because it does indeed contain edits by others. But substantial edits? The first 11 edits are by the sock. Then an editor disambiguates a link and sorts categories. Another editor adds a short description and a maintenance tag. The next seven edits are by the same sock master, Wesleyner7, using another account. Another editor adds a speedy tag; another editor declines it. The next three edits are adding this AfD nomination, and then a notability tag. Now, User:FreezerBernie makes some actual prose edits (the first time this has happened from a non-sock, note). A bot, meanwhile, dates the maintenance tag. And that's the complete editing history until the G5 tagging/decline.
So it appears that the only non-sock/maintenance edits to the article were FreezerBernie's, and they comprise 3.5% of the total article history. Substantial, not. ——SN 54129 12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the above should not be taken as condoning BritishTea's edits: NinjaRobotPirate left a note on their page suggesting they are a sock. This seems a logical assessment. We are in the curious position of a possible sock AfD'ing an acrtual sock's article. ——SN 54129 13:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cloutnews.com, deccanherald.com, english.newstracklive.com, hindustantimes.com, mid-day.com, news9.com, thenewspocket.com, thestatesman.com and tokyodailynews.com are all completely unreliable for entertainment news and will publish just about any press release about even the most minimally "famous" "celebrity". Let's not forget that the main business of these "influencers" is promotion. Vexations (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; when an article has sources like this, clearly someone's been looking for anything and everything, and it's obvious that no actually reliable sources are available. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Could be recreated as a redirect if there is an appropriate target. RL0919 (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haleth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable fictional character. The article is uncited, but I was able to find one source: a 1996 Mythlore article titled "Power in Arda: Sources, uses and misuses" (EL Crowe) seems to discuss the figure reasonably in-depth, but there's nothing else I can find. There's a couple of brief references, but between the brief mentions and the Crowe article, there's still not enough for a stand-alone article. Note: a lot of the references are not to this Haleth: There's also the House of Haleth (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Haleth and a very minor Haleth (that Haleth is male, this one from the nom is female and from a much earlier timeframe in Tolkien). I think almost all of the Tolkiencruft is gone, but this article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to be mentioned at the Silmarillion or The War of the Jewels articles, so a redirect may not be in order. Hog Farm (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Silmarillion – Actually it looks as though she appears at least as a reasonably significant minor character in the Silmarillion, but I'm not finding enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish independent notability. The best I can come up with besides the source Hog Farm found above (linked here) is a Mary Sue article; otherwise it's just a collection of passing mentions and/or glossary entries in several Tolkien analysis books. CThomas³ (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cthomas3: She is a character in the Silmarillion and The War of the Jewels, but I meant to say that she is not mentioned at the article for either of those pages. I would have no objections to adding a short bit of information about this character to the Silmarillion page, but unless that is done, I would be wary of redirecting to an article where the character is not mentioned. Hog Farm (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one article is not enough to show notability. I do not see why we need a redirect. I am also less convinced than some that we are anywhere near having freed ourselves of unneeded Tolkiencruft. For one think we have lots and lots of articles that are still overly in-universe, and there is some indication that some eidtors will resist attempts to make them less in-universe. There is also a major lack of sources on articles, even ones that some seem to assume are about notable subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails GNG, impressively sourced to absolutely nothing. All potential redirect targets either do not mention the character, or very clearly fail GNG as well, and specifically I do not think adding information about Haleth to the article on the Silmarillion is the right thing to do. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haleth is a minor character in Tolkien's legendarium. Honestly, she is less notable than the other Haleth. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments laid out here that the topic isn't salvageable due to the inadequacy of the sources presented and the fact that the subject is no longer active in sports. If people insist on draftification, they can ask at WP:REFUND, but here, I don't see a compelling enough argument in favour of it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kjersti Bø[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Skiing doesn't have an SNG to use as a rough guide to notability, so we have to go by WP:GNG, per WP:SPORTCRIT. I have done a reasonably thorough BEFORE search (for an English speaker), and I have found no in-depth sources about the subject. There were only trivial mentions and listings on sports statistics pages. As she is now retired after a very brief career, it is unlikely that any further in-depth sources will emerge. Per SPORTCRIT, Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources...is not sufficient to establish notability; we cannot maintain this article on the basis of stat pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mere mentions in a few news outlets with no in-depth or wide coverage. It does not appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON since the subject retired after a short career. Notability has not been shown. Fails WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article looks very raw and should be incubated and developed more in the draftspace--Chartwind (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chartwind, the woman has retired. It is incredibly unlikely that any further sources will be written about her athletic career, making a move to draftspace pointless. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PMC. Understood and also it sounds probably logical but every time I'm doubt, I prefer to give it a chance and let see what more experienced users related to the particular project (in this case - Norwegian sports) might tell about it. I believe that in certain cases, it doesn't hurt draftspace. I also suggest to bring people related to the Norwegian sports (by expanding this discussion in the other related discussions) and see what they have to say about it.--Chartwind (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chartwind, I would argue that draftification of articles that are not likely to develop new sources does cause a certain amount of harm, in terms of wasted volunteer time/attention. The most efficient outcome of a move to draft in this case is that the deletion is simply postponed for 6 months until someone tags it as G13 for an admin to assess and delete it. But if any humans edit it for any reason during that time (even to add whitespace), the deletion is postponed, and the content lurches around zombie-like until someone gets annoyed and takes it to MfD, which again is an expenditure of time that wouldn't have happened if the article had simply been deleted at AfD. If the subject were still skiing professionally, I'd be happy to go along with a move to draftspace, since more sources might develop, but in this case (and all cases where sources are unlikely to develop), there's very little potential benefit.

The article has been deletion-sorted under sports and Norway (there's no skiing-specific delsort option), but if you wish to advertise it elsewhere, by all means bring more people into the discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's not be too hasty. It looks to me as if the article could be usefully expanded on the basis of info from Norwegian sites, e.g. [30] and several others which mention how she was placed in events.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple statistics about placement in events are not sufficient, per SPORTCRIT, as mentioned above. There needs to be in-depth coverage of the athlete in reliable secondary sources. The article you mentioned is an interview published on the website of a sports-fitness non-profit - hardly a high-quality broad-audience publication, and interviews are generally considered primary rather than secondary sources for the purpose of indicating notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately a WP:MILL skier with no in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Now that she is retired, she is extremely unlikely to become notable in the future. CThomas³ (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to San Juan Islands#List of islands. History is available if anyone believes there are details worth merging. RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple Island (Washington)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Uninhabited island that is just over 3 acres and has no remarkable features. Online search only turns up a short description that describes some grass and nothing else. Sounder Bruce 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent, San Juan Islands#List of islands. It gets a brief description as a member of the archipelago, but there's really nothing to distinguish it. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: This island closely follows the example of a failure given at WP:GEOLAND. It is best described as part of its parent landform. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this would be a stub at best, but it does get written about in a few places beyond mere statistics, such as [31] [32] [33] [34] (apparently within that paper) ([35] non-RS). I don't think WP:GEOLAND is all that far off from being satisfied, but the proper place for this is probably in a list of the San Juan islands, along with a proper description. SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No evidence tiny island is notable, can be covered elsewhere. Gameron46's deprod claim is simply false. Reywas92^Talk 06:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. CThomas³ (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Space Command[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is one source for its "establishment" and that says "next month" Moreover the MOD have this [[36]] which seems to say it is in fact part of air command. Thus I am not sure this is anything but a click bate story that is making claims that may not in fact turn to be nearly as thrilling as the article implies. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation does exist,[37] and we'll probably be hearing more about it in the future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...is expected to pick up a new assignment in February 2020:", so no he has not yet taken over, and no it does not yet exist.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And (as I have said) this is the only source for this, that alone fails notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable per WP:MILUNIT. Two-star commands obviously fall within criterion #2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet after two days we still only have one source for this being a real thing (well will be a real thing in Feb). Why not wait until then, and its clear if this is "The UK Space command" or "Air Command, Space" or whatever name they OFFICIALLY give it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue is whether it is notable enough for an article. Which it clearly is. It already has a commander; it will definitely be formed. It can be renamed when we have an official name. That's not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source does not notability make.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We know it is being created (given its commander has been appointed). It is blatantly obvious that when created it will be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this was an official MOD statement care to link to it so we know what it was (officially) called and what he was in fact appointed to command? As the RAF page I linked to here does not call it a space command, or even a new command, rather it implies (if that is too weak a word) it is an existing command being given some new responsibility.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - There isn't much information here, but could easily be expanded upon. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, as literately this article is all there is. One source for one officer taking up a post in a few weeks (without even an official name for it, the name is a lock bate headline).Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Space Command (United Kingdom); this is *NOT* called "UK Space Command"; secondly, whack with extreme prejudice if more information does not appear within a month. If more info doesn't appear quickly, this is WP:TOOSOON. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not kepp in case something happens or in case it becomes notable. We delete and then recreate when it happens.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "in case". It's a definite on both counts. It probably will be the case that Space Command (United Kingdom) will be the correct title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or (as I say above) it maybe this is just an existing command with new responsibility, not a separate "space force". We are still reliant totally on a single source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it has now been a week, and not one other source is talking about this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those suggesting this should be kept are suggesting that there will be sources in the future to demonstrate notability. Policy does not let us presume future sources. Either there is sourcing to demonstrate notability now or there is not and this could be created if/when such notability is established. Relisting to provide time for evidence of notability of the topic at the present time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; definite case of WP:TOOSOON. I can only find the one reference to any kind of "space command" for the British military. Just in case "space command" wasn't the correct name, I even tried searching for the supposed commander, AVM Harvey Smyth, and the same Defense News reference is the only source I could find linking him to anything related to space. If this were a real, imminent thing, I would think that some other news outlet would have picked this up by now. If and when it actually becomes real, we can re-create the article at that time. CThomas³ (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete since nothing has came from the past week, and Cthomas3 has some good points. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's all just speculation sourced from one article and even that refers to the new body as "space directorate" which might just be an administrative function. Wait until there's something solid to write about. Neiltonks (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree that at the moment this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.Dunarc (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Sayer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the first deletion nomination for Sayer, she does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since then, so perhaps salting may be beneficial. DarkGlow (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given her two main roles in The Children and The Turn of the Screw, I believe the actress meets Criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR—although some more references would be good. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't quite pass WP:NACTOR enough, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable (productions)" -- not really significant (mid-level) and just barely multiple (2). HalJor (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazlik[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character. The article is completely comprised of in-universe, plot summary. The only sources being used are primary, and searching for additional sources only reveals additional primary sources, non-reliable sources, and mirrors of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRUFT Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GAMEGUIDE. No notability outside of the game. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mamahuhu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Provided sources either do not appear to be reliable or do not have significant coverage of the subject. I tried searching for sources, and amusingly it looks like there is a restaurant in San Francisco by this name which may be notable, but I wasn't able to find anything about the website. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Respected sources from Asian, American and many other media that are serious enough. The sources respect the Wikipedia rules, so this article has its place as an article on Wikipedia.. -Susanowoo --Susanowoo (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 00:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susanowoo, could you identify which sources you think contribute to GNG? From my view, the ones that have coverage that could be considered significant do not appear to be reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps a redirect to Media of China or similar. They do seem to be on the cusp of transitioning from internet notable to IRL notable but they don’t yet appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Nayar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any independent secondary coverage about the subject, although it is possible that I something got crowded out as there were several search results of Nayar's own work. The sole claim to notability as it stands is that the subject has won a Red Ink Awards from the Mumbai Press Club, but it's not clear to me that that's a significant enough award to meet WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Moved to draftspace until there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cignature (girl group)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The band was created in 2020 and as stated in the article had!! their first album in February 2020 (in the future). Obviously fails WP:BAND. Less Unless (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as WP:TOOSOON, and create redirect for cignature to C9 Entertainment. Wait until after it gets press outside of unreliable K-pop sources (no soompis, allkpops, etc.) and when it begins to enter mainstream K-pop news. There may be other brands that use Cignature, but those haven't shown up in Wikipedia articles yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per User:AngusWOOF. Clearly the right call. BD2412 T 05:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per User:AngusWOOF Alex (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON; on the verge of WP:N but sourcing is not yet adequate Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.